User talk:Racepacket/Archive2

Thank you for your review and comments. I will plan to work my way through them. Nandt1 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, again, Racepacket. Thanks again for your feedback on Senator Owen. I think that, at this stage, I have perhaps done pretty much what I can on the basis of the comments you provided. As you will see from my comments at the Discussion page, I have tried to work my way systematically through each of your specific points and to make changes in line with your suggestions. More broadly, I drew from your review the larger message that the main area where the article needed substantive strengthening concerned the "other issues" (i.e., other than the Federal Reserve) that Owen addressed while in the Senate. So, as you will see, almost every para of that section has been reinforced, whether it is the League of Nations, the Department of Health, tariffs (and trusts), child labor, etc. (As I also mention on the Discussion page, I have ordered Owen's book on Foreign Exchange, just in case that might yield additional insight on international economic/financial issues).

So, at this point, I think it would make sense for you to do another careful review of the article as it now reads, and let me know where you think we stand.

Thanks again for your help with this. Nandt1 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have responded on the RLO Talk page to your latest review (for which many thanks). There are a couple of points where you'll see I'd welcome your advice on how to approach. Nandt1 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, thank you for the feedback on the points mentioned above. I have, in turn, done a further round, and so it is back to you once more! Nandt1 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Finally there! Thank you so much, Racepacket, for your support throughout this process. You have helped make this a better article. A pleasure to work with you! Nandt1 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on my talk page, and will continue to do so for this topic in case someone else wants to join in. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Racepacket, Margaret Thatcher has been comprehensively edited by three or four experienced editors and has been nominated and is again currently a good article nominee, please see the template on Talk:Margaret Thatcher, if you have energy and time to review again that would be great ,no hurry, no worry, regards - Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your sterling suggestions there. I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into this. --John (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks from me too, and for having the courage to undertake the review of what might well have become a contentious subject. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will make this your hat trick - Many thanks for for all your efforts to improve the biography, quality contributions from all three of you, that has resulted in an article wikipedia can be proud of. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Miami Project to Cure Paralysis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jrcla2 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, funny that I should have seen your DYK nom. I'm moving to Coral Gables in the near future (not for college though, I graduated a few years ago) and have already given myself numerous walking tours of the UMiami campus while down there (I'm from New Jersey). I loved the lake in the middle of the grounds, but I have yet to see a gator (or croc...whatever is rumored to be living at the bottom). Jrcla2 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually do not know anything about Miami and the Miami project and I usually tend to edit only high impact articles. I made those comments due to the presence of the article in GAN as I added the article to the medicine project. Therefore I do not think I will be able to help much. A few hints: try to find news or articles on the Miami project from national instead of local newspapers in google news. In addition you can try to search for the original scientific publications and then try to search for news, or scientific articles in pubmed that review those articles. I would also recommend a withdrawal from GAN. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry, but I am not really interested enough in this article to invest the hours it would take finding all sources for a successful GAN.--Garrondo (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing bacon ice cream so quickly. I've taken a lot of your suggestions on board, and left some comments on the other ones. From what I've read, the ice creams aren't "bacon-flavoured" but instead have bacon in them, which accents the flavour. I've tried to get this across in the recipe section, but I'm not sure how well I've done. Also, re: flavour encapsulation, I'll look into writing an article about it, I think it's going to require a bit of research. Having said that, I haven't seen anyone but Heston and his friends talk about it yet, so maybe no basis in science... Worm 10:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I hope I've addressed you're concerns. I haven't found anything regarding Blumenthal creating bacon flavours or shortcutting his insanely long cooking processes, but I've written a bit more about what he does. Would appreciate any further comments Worm 14:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks a lot for your help. Tempted to do a GAR but haven't done one yet, am quite intimidated by the whole idea. Still I've got 3 through GAR so I must be doing something right. A task for tomorrow methinks. Worm 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Awesome! I didn't realize it had made GA. Thanks! So are you interested in being an ambassador? --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it is great to see that you are a fellow runner and have lived in New York! WikiProject SUNY could certainly use your help, and I've mainly been doing what I can to work on article assessment and forming the project while keeping it active. Even so, this is the first WikiProject where I have taken such a leading role, and if you could assist, even with the basic formatting of the main page, I would greatly appreciate it. Even if it is only advice you have to offer, I would be happy to listen to a more experienced Wikipedian. Thank you! Adavis444 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your prompt reply! Do you know who we could ask about the debugging and general WikiProject formatting advice? And by the way, welcome to WikiProject SUNY! Adavis444 (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment on the WPUS talkpage. --Kumioko (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I also find it disappointing and innapropriate that you would go fishing for votes fro your proposal by leaving a comment on the pages of only the users who agree with you. This is votestacking and campaigning and is inappropriate so please stop. --Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Racepacket. You have new messages at Talk:Interstate 705/GA1.
Message added 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied to your comments. Admrboltz (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 24 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Harmony Toll Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the New Harmony Toll Bridge, which opened in 1930, is owned by the only remaining joint state toll bridge commission chartered by the U.S. Congress? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Help! I am just getting started in the MPA prgram at WCU. I am very new to Wikipedia so I need all the help I can get. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne10 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello RacePacket,

I'm a Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communications major at James Madison University. This semester I am enrolled in a Technical Editing course where the students will create, modify, and edit wikipedia pages on the subject of U.S. Public Policy. Would you be interested in mentoring me for this assignment? The course information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Spring_2011/Professional_and_Technical_Editing_%28Cindy_Allen%29

Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely, Sam Patteson pattessm@jmu.edu

You sent me an email back after I asked you to be my mentor. I would like to sign up officially but as you can see I am not even sure how to respond to your message. Help please. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne10 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Racepacket, I am in a Technical Editing class at James Madison University and we are editing for the United States Public Policy. I was curious if you could be my mentor throughout this experience?

Michalge (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your behavior recently regarding the scope of WPUS has been becoming more and more innappropriate. If you don't agree fine. If you want to discuss it fine. But don't startForum Shopping, votestacking and campaigning so that you can convince others that WPUS is on a mission to consume the other projects. We are not and never had that intention. Your acting like a dirty politician making up lies about their opponents and twisting statements in the hopes that whomever reads it is too ignorant to discover the truth. I did not dismiss you opinions or anyone elses. You tried to tell me we didn't have consensus and I explained to you and the others that with 180 members joining the project after the scope was established we did. Most of the projects that are active have already voiced their opposition to the proposal of consolidated use of {{WikiProject United States}}. Thats ok. The second question about collaboration on and getting help with the US Collaboration of the month, noticeboard and portal mostly went unanswered. Also fine. But to go around banging on doors and asking folks to join the hcause against the evil tyrant United States before they take over is completely unacceptable. In the cases of the projects that have been added to the WPUS template and added under the Umbrella of WPUS I have left messages on the projects talk page, contacted every member still active and anyone who made recurring comments or changes to it. IF they fall under WPUS in some capacity its because the projects agreed. We did not drag them in kicking and screaming and beat them into submission so STOP making it sound that way. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment. You obviously do not understand how your comments are coming across to others, and perhaps have overlooked that we are working toward a Wikipedia-wide consensus of interested editors and not some vote of 180 card-carrying members. Racepacket (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome but your comments are also having the same affect if you hadn't noticed. Just wondering but does WikiProject Maryland and Illinois require Wikipedia wide concensus to set their scope and mission? Or is that left up to the project members? I'd be curious to know if there has been precedence for a requirement for Wikipedia wide consensus for the scope of a project. --Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A good marine understands his area of operations, rules of engagement and overall mission, and then tries to stay in his lane. Let's define the mission and avoid unnecessary collateral damage by needlessly driving over state-level and specific-topic WikiProjects. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thats true but a good leader can also see beyond the immediate mission and see the over all strategy behind the operation at hand. Even seemingly meaningless training excersizes have an effect on the overall capabilities of the unit and its goals. The larger picture here that you are failing to see is an increased level of collaboration among US users and an increase in US related content being worked on. Whether you intend too or not you are fostering that by continuing your quest. It is at least partly because of you ongoing efforts that the project is drafting a new Scope statement so I thank you for putting us on that path. I still encourage you to join the project. Especially given the amount of effort and activity you have put forth lately to assist the project in developing new guidelines and project functions. I also fail too see how our project is creating collateral damage by needlessly driving over state-level and specific-topic WikiProjects. Can you name one state project we have driven over? How about a specific-topic project? Maybe show me some evidence of collateral damage maybe? Doubtful. I imagine if you take a step back and breath for a minute and start looking around you'll probably find more evidence to the contrary. An increase in collaboration and content. --Kumioko (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. My name is Garrett Pietrocola, and I'm pretty new to this whole Wikipedia thing. I've made this account for a college course and I need a mentor to fulfill the requirements for that course. If you're interested, I was wondering if you would be interested in being my mentor? Please let me know either way, and thanks for the consideration.

Pietrogpjmu (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and thank you. Are you a college student as well?

Pietrogpjmu (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's no difference to me. Honestly, I doubt I'll bother you much; it's just a requirement for the class. And I'm in Cindy Allen's WRTC 240 course. We are working on the US Public Policy initiative, so your energy background could be insightful. I'll keep you posted on the status of the course and inquire for help as I need it. And again, thanks for the quick response. Pietrogpjmu (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

SWEET, it's like you're my shaman!!!

Pietrogpjmu (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean to leave this comment on a user not talk page? And to answer your question, the course for Energy policy isn't starting until the beginning of next month, so as of right now they aren't going to be creating accounts for a short bit. You may want to hold off a couple slots for that course if you want to work with those students, Sadads (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a couple of the posts you made to talk:United States didn't get signed. Would you mind signing them. There is one at the very bottom and the other is the Importance rating suggestion you left. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I think we had too many editors trying to make comments at the same time. --Kumioko (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suggest if you are going to leave messages for WikiProjects to comment you word them a little bit less POV. Perhaps something like this might be more appropriate:

Myself and a couple of other editors have concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States. Thanks.

Lets not make the minority into the majority in the wording of details. It is being perceived as deceiptful and petty. --Kumioko (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, I have all 211 projects on my watchlist so I would be glad to follow you andn clarify each one. Or if you can agree to a neutrally worded message that doesn't favor either project and lets the readers decide for themselves the merits of the proposal I would be glad to do an AWB run though all 200+ projects and if you want the users as well (which would take a day or so). I doubt highly that most are going to be willing to mine through the discussions so a summery at the end may be more appropriate. What do you say? --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to let you know that I have submitted an ANI notice for intervention in this matter. Its gone on long enough. --Kumioko (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Due to our ongoing "Slugfest" and based on comments by some other editors I have agreed to limit my comments to allow others a chance to talk this out. I recommend you do the same. --Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am an MPA student at Western Carolina University. Would you be willing to be my mentor? --BrickWallBartholomew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC).Reply

I just thought you would be interested to know that I left WikiProject United States so I will not be actively participating anymore in the discussion or on the project. I also feel like I should inform you that this was primarily because of you and that I have lost all respect for you as an editor and I find your tactics and methods to get your way to be disappointing and innapropriate. I hope in time that will change. I also will not be participating actively in any other "project" or the Collaboration, noticeboard or portal. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a good photo, but it has nothing to do with RSMAS. It'd be better if a RSMAS researcher was involved with that particular project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. Racepacket (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, unfortunately I don't have any students for you to mentor yet. I have not had a chance to meet up with the class and go over the basics and set up accounts. My fellow campus ambassador and I will be meeting with our class on Feb. 4th to set all of this up. Hopefully you'll still have some slots open that late, but I understand if that won't be the case. Cheers, Austin.dixon (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have reviewed this article for GA status and put it on hold for seven days to give you a chance to respond to the issues I have raised. Arctic Night 02:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Racepacket. You have new messages at Talk:Wheeling Tunnel/GA1.
Message added 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied to all of your concerns. Admrboltz (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Listen man. I am going to try and say this as nicely and as calmly as I can. Obviously we have a problem with each other but those issues and the differences of opinion regarding WikiProject United States has gone on long enough and needs to stop. We are both tainting the soup with our continuous comments on the discussion. I recognized that and left and you need to be a man and do the same thing and walk away. Show that you can be a good mentor. Show your mentees how Wikipedians should act. Let the project do what the project thinks is right. Don't continue to try and steer the discussion the way you want and make comments like if knowone voices objection I am going to change your scope the way I want. Its obvious that ANI won't do anything and its just as obvious to me at this point that there is little chance that you are going to listen to my suggestions but try and think about whats best for Wikipedia and the US related articles and topics. Is it for us to continue this petty arguing? No. Its to stop this unending stupidity and move on. I have done it you should too. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, I feel no ill will toward you, and I don't doubt the sincerity of your feelings. I wasn't the first person to express concerns, and I am not standing in the way of people on either side stating their views. I am careful to step back and give other people a chance to comment. I still don't understand why you feel that DJSasso, Ryecatcher773, Student7, KarlM, TwinsMetsFan, Markvs88, Otr500, Mudwater, Casliber, JonRidinger, Imzadi 1979 and I should not have just as much right as any other Wikipedia editor to express our views? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You do have the right as do they but frankly you have gone overboard with pressing your opinions and its time to stop and most of those users didn't comment on the scope of WPUS other than they didn't want their state projects pulled into WPUS which was perfectly ok and understandable. --Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since I see that you are unwilling or incapable of doing the right thing in regards to WPUS I see no reason why I shouldn't continue to participate in the discussions. Thanks for doing what was needed to keep my in the project and changing my mind about leaving. It was just the kick in the pants I needed to make sure that the future of the project and the best intentions of the articles is maintained. --Kumioko (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis completed a clinical trial to test whether hypothermia (cooling) within the first few hours of a traumatic spinal cord or brain injury makes a difference in the severity of injury? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011 This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program. Classes get active, students requesting mentors First mentor responsibilities Other news Things you can do

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Reply

On 29 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin began the regulation of wellhead natural gas prices, which lasted until Congress deregulated them on January 1, 1985? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 30 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virginia–Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Virginia–Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine serves as the state-supported veterinary school for both Virginia and Maryland? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article New Harmony Toll Bridge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Harmony Toll Bridge for things which need to be addressed. Admrboltz (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have passed the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 31 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gulet Mohamed, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gulet Mohamed, a American citizen who was detained in Kuwait, was blocked from flying home by the U.S. "no-fly list" until a federal court intervened to allow him to return? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message - here's the text with refs that relate to the hook:

In 1979, the African elephant population was estimated to be around 1.3 million in 37 range states, but by 1989 only 600,000 remained.^[1][2] Although many ivory traders, with the support of some conservationists, repeatedly claimed that the problem was habitat loss, it became glaringly clear that the threat was primarily the international ivory trade.^[1][3][1]

Hope that helps. (Enviro2009 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC))Reply

I temporarily reverted your addition of a communications policy to WPUS for now. This might surprise you but I personally think the idea has merit but I don't agree with the exact wording (I have added a rephrasing to the Comm policy discussion) and I am not 100% if its even needed. I also think that we should do declinations of notification by exception for projects rather than force them to manually decline. I also think that if someone or some projects wants to be notified without actually being a member they should be free to do so. For those projects that don't want the notifications thats quite ok but since they will frequently contain updates and information about the US portal, Topic of the Month Collaboration and Noticeboard I recommend they get it even if they disregard it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

With the GA finished up, I've renominated Rutherford Hayes for FAC. If you have any comments to add this time around, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Coemgenus 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC).Reply

Hey, I left something in response to Kumioko's comments, Sadads (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to   The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by   Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to   Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1,   Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and   Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 ed17 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've googled a few tutorials trying to figure out how to cite information to an official source. Not quite sure yet how to do so. Would you know of a good link that could easily runs me through that? Thank you. BrickWallBartholomew (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you obsessively work on promoting articles concerning my alma mater to GA status?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your question. I have been working on promoting University articles to GA for some time. For example, in December 2010, I managed to get Syracuse University promoted to GA, and I first nominated RSMAS for GA on February 18, 2010. The process just takes a long time. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, you keep bringing the same articles to GA and they fail and you don't really do much else to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In addition to your many fine edits, there are my edits from November 14-17 for example. I believe that we addressed all concerns raised in the first GA review. Racepacket (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You keep putting in unnecessary minutae into these articles. No one reading about RSMAS is going to give a shit about the refrigeration unit they replaced three years ago. Just because it happened there doesn't mean Wikipedia has to report on it, particularly when the RSMAS page mentions nothing about ecological stability as an economic move.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand how as an alumnus you might view it that way. However, my method is to do a Google search and then go through the results to find what has generated news coverage. WP:UNI has some guidelines that suggests what should go into articles, including a discussion of sustainability efforts. Wikipedia has a number of policies that drive the addition of more items not mentioned on the RSMAS webpage. First, the more non-RSMAS webpage items included avoids any claims that this is a "derivative work" based on the RSMAS webpage. Second, WP:V places an emphasis on secondary sources, and the RSMAS webpage is a primary source. If I were the decision-maker for Wikipedia I might do things differently, but I am working to make the RSMAS article "good" in the eyes of Wikipedia and its volunteer reviewers. Readers researching campus sustainability efforts might find the centralized chiller interesting. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not looking at this as an alumnus. I'm looking at it as a reader. No one gives a crap what the chiller plant is and how it was removed from the RSMAS campus. You make no mention of any greening or anything else concerning the campus or why that is particularly important for overall coverage. You can't just add random crap you find that concerns the school. This isn't a DYK thing. It's an article on the school as a whole and coverage on the removal of an air conditioning unit is not relevant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have not tried to reintroduce the 2008 chiller replacement as an example of reducing RSMAS' carbon footprint. However, I disagree that I am "putting in unnecessary minutae into these articles." Any two editors will have different views on what will prove to be of interest to readers. So, let's work together to get through the GA process. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 2 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Landis Report, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Landis Report reviewed United States administrative agencies in 1960 for President-elect Kennedy and recommended greater clarity on the roles and authority of agency chairs? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Reply

 

Hello, Racepacket. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know that you have been working steadily on some of the Metro articles and I thought I would let you know, in case you didn't already that there has been a flurry of news articles lately about the Purple line. It looks as though it might actually happen with a break ground sometime in late 2013 or early 14. If you look in google news you should see several links as well as the Washington Post. From what I can see one of the last hurdles is for the University of Maryland to agree on the proposal and they should be pretty much locked in. Anyway, I just thought I would let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to violate copyright, apparently on a large scale, even after a prior CCI investigation. Context for third parties may be found here. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any specific protest regarding the handling of this copyvio issue (I haven't been involved in any of these investigations or allegations) but as an editor who has participated in several article talk-page discussions with Racepacket, I've found his contributions and insights to be valuable, even when we have disagreed. In other words, it is not the case that he is simply a mute copyright scofflaw- based on these findings, it seems to me that he is a productive, collaborative editor whose work habits are flawed. Is it possible to limit a block such that an editor is only restricted from editing articles, but not talk pages or project pages? —Bill Price (nyb) 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is the short sample of infringements and or plagiarisms from User talk:Bilby:

1. February 2, 2011: Diff, with content ripped from here;
2. January 27, 2011: New Article, with text with content ripped from here;
3. January 26, 2010: New article, with content ripped from (the subject) here;
4. January 12, 2011: Diff, with content ripped from here;
5. January 9, 2011: Diff, with content ripped from here (and here, from here);
6. December 20, 2010: New article, with content ripped from here;
7. December 19, 2010. Diff, with content ripped from here;
8. November 27, 2010: New Article, with content ripped from here;

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Racepacket (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking Admin gave his reasons on User talk:Bilby. He cites eight examples prompting his action. I believe that each edit was permissible. 1) The Feb 2 RSMAS edit - I inserted one paraphrased sentence, and it would be impossible to convey this fact without paraphrasing it in some fashion. 2) Landis Report - I incorporated a sentence from Administrative Conference of the United States which apparently is the same as a sentence on a public domain government webpage. 3) Phillips v. Wisconsin - When summarizing the background of the case, I paraphrased from a public domain court decision. 4) Mike Lee - I paraphrased one sentence from the source indicated, and it would be a distortion to depart much from this formulation. 5) Johnson Museum - I used two facts from a part of a sentence in the first example, I used the headings and four photographers' names in the second example to summarize the permanent collection. Again, it impossible to describe an art musuem collection without some similar text, and this small amount of discontinuous text is permissible. 6) Decerega - I paraphrased facts in a different sequence. One sentence is the same. 7) Mbata - paraphrased selected facts in a different order. 8) BlackRock Center for the Arts - I incorporated two sentences from Germantown, Montgomery County, Maryland#Culture, which is similar to one sentence cited by admin. An examination of the contrib history of the Admin for the period in question suggests he may not have been in a good mood, using edit summaries like "The hubris!" and "Damn, damn damn, piss and shit; I'm going to have to spend $30 to look at one article that i'm not even sure is the right one" during his recent edits. Again, I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and do my best to comply with them.

Decline reason:

Let's see:

1. Maybe six words changed in a lengthy cut-and-paste
2. Direct cut and paste, no alteration
3. More direct cut and paste, no significant alteration
4. Again, more cut and paste. Original: he has partnered with Champions for Children, a charity event that benefits Children’s Memorial Hospital. He has donated two ringside seats, air travel and hotel for Saturday’s event. Copy: Lee has partnered with Champions for Children, a charity event that benefits Children’s Memorial Hospital. He has donated two ringside seats, air travel and hotel for his November 2010 fight. That's not a paraphrase.
5. More cut-and-paste, entire sentence lifted unchanged
6. Entire sentences lifted unchanged
7. Changing the order of sentences is not paraphrasing

That you are "doing your best" to comply is not adequate; policy doesn't require attempts at compliance, it requires compliance. Your understanding of our copyright policies is very flawed, even though you assert your awareness of them. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Racepacket (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking Admin gave his reasons on User talk:Bilby. He cites eight examples prompting his action. I believe that each edit was permissible. 1) The Feb 2 RSMAS edit - I inserted one paraphrased sentence, and it would be impossible to convey this fact without paraphrasing it in some fashion. 2) Landis Report - I incorporated a sentence from Administrative Conference of the United States which apparently is the same as a sentence on a public domain government webpage. 3) Phillips v. Wisconsin - When summarizing the background of the case, I paraphrased from a public domain court decision. 4) Mike Lee - I paraphrased one sentence from the source indicated, and it would be a distortion to depart much from this formulation. 5) Johnson Museum - I used two facts from a part of a sentence in the first example, I used the headings and four photographers' names in the second example to summarize the permanent collection. Again, it impossible to describe an art musuem collection without some similar text, and this small amount of discontinuous text is permissible. 6) Decerega - I paraphrased facts in a different sequence. One sentence is the same. 7) Mbata - paraphrased selected facts in a different order. 8) BlackRock Center for the Arts - I incorporated two sentences from Germantown, Montgomery County, Maryland#Culture, which is similar to one sentence cited by admin. An examination of the contrib history of the Admin for the period in question suggests he may not have been in a good mood, using edit summaries like "The hubris!" and "Damn, damn damn, piss and shit; I'm going to have to spend $30 to look at one article that i'm not even sure is the right one" during his recent edits. Again, I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and do my best to comply with them.

Decline reason:

Let's see:

1. Maybe six words changed in a lengthy cut-and-paste
2. Direct cut and paste, no alteration
3. More direct cut and paste, no significant alteration
4. Again, more cut and paste. Original: he has partnered with Champions for Children, a charity event that benefits Children’s Memorial Hospital. He has donated two ringside seats, air travel and hotel for Saturday’s event. Copy: Lee has partnered with Champions for Children, a charity event that benefits Children’s Memorial Hospital. He has donated two ringside seats, air travel and hotel for his November 2010 fight. That's not a paraphrase.
5. More cut-and-paste, entire sentence lifted unchanged
6. Entire sentences lifted unchanged
7. Changing the order of sentences is not paraphrasing

That you are "doing your best" to comply is not adequate; policy doesn't require attempts at compliance, it requires compliance. Your understanding of our copyright policies is very flawed, even though you assert your awareness of them. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: Wikipedia policy allows copying/paraphrasing from public domain sources and from other wikipedia pages, which was not addressed by either admin.

Your unblock request must be retained. If you remove it again, you will lose the ability to edit your talk page. --Rschen7754 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is important to note that on 03:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC) User:Rschen7754 left the following comment for me on his review of Virginia State Route 27:

It's just tacky to quote in the second sentence, when it's pretty easy to paraphrase it yourself.

To which I replied, "I can't paraphrase it any better and don't want to be guilty of a close paraphrase." So on the one hand, the people who were failing GA reviews for failure to paraphrase are gleefully exploiting the situation as an "opportunity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.140.100 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have been contacted by User:Harej by email, who proposes in sum and substance, that you be unblocked on condition that you cannot make substantive contributions to articles unless they are vetted by a mentor and that you have agreed to this condition. What is concerning to me is that until the bitter end you were defending your edits, have never acknowledged you did anything wrong and, assuming the IP edit above is from you, you are still making excuses. I will nevertheless agree to this proposal, so long as the mentor is an experienced editor willing to take on the serious time obligation for this task (Harej did not tell me directly that he was agreeing to be that mentor, but if he is, he is obviously suitable), and that you further specifically state here that you will refrain from any further copying and close paraphrasing of content. It goes without saying that any further copyright infringements will result in a reinstatement of the block by any admin. If you respond appropriately and a mentor states their agreement here, I will unblock.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree to be the copyright mentor. harej 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Way to go Harej! Sadads (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to restate the email traffic, I shall comply with Wikipedia's copyright policies. Racepacket (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Responding in part to your emails, which I have just seen, I thought I was pretty clear above about what was required. In addition to a someone agreeing to serve in the capacity of a copyright mentor, I asked that you "specifically state here that you will refrain from any further copying and close paraphrasing of content" (emphasis added). You could have done that five days ago. Per your not very satisfactory statement directly above to that effect, I have unblocked you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per conversation with user:Harej on IRC I'm now your copyright mentor. Both User:Racepacket/Whipple and User:Racepacket/Redwood look legit and can be used.©Geni 02:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The aditions to User:Racepacket/Getty also look legit.©Geni 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The additions to User:Racepacket/WMATA also appear to be legitimate.©Geni 02:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/Hynes is no good. "She participates in the Metropolitan Development Policy Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments" is dirrect copy and paste from here.©Geni 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That should be acceptable yes.©Geni 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/ICC appears to be okey.©Geni 23:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Red Line (Washington Metro). "groundbreaking" is one word other than that fine.©Geni 02:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/Getty Aagin best I can tell looks okey.©Geni 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Both Mary Hynes and orange look fine.©Geni 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/GSC looks okey.©Geni 23:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/VBH looks okey still looking at the other one.©Geni 01:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/Discovery appears to be okey.©Geni 02:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/CNC looks okey however File:Cayuga Nature Cener Treehouse.jpg was on flickr under a license that didn't allow for commercial use which means it isn't free enough for us to use on wikipedia.©Geni 00:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actualy I had already deleted the image.©Geni 01:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/WMATA best I can tell it's okey.©Geni 00:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/WMATA bit on the yellow line looks okey.©Geni 14:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/WMATA has the full version of the Yellow Line article which I had also sent to you in an email. Please let me know if it is cleared to post. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Racepacket/WMATA appears to be fine.©Geni 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 require that all maintenance workers in the United Kingdom who may come into contact with asbestos must be given special training? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kinda surprised to see you came back but good luck. I got tired of the drama myself and left so you shouldn't have any more problems with WikiProject United States getting in your way. I hope I am wrong but I suspect know that I am gone it will go inactive again. --Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

 

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to   The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and   Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round.   Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to   Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to   Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) 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 ed17 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for giving your thorough review. I have edited the article and responded. Savidan 02:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have replied again. Savidan 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've replied yet again. There is no need to notify me on my talk, as I am watching the review page. I suggest you do the same. Savidan 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've been to the Rosendale Library to try to find out more about its incorporation. I didn't find much on that, but I did find a ton of stuff on Rosendale's transition from an industrial cement producer to an artist colony. I added a lot to the article, just wanted to let you know it's ready.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the remaining issues. Thanks you for the review! --Gyrobo (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing it so quickly. I made a handful of changes. I really appreciated the info on the teenager who was charged and expanded on it. The only hurdles I see remaining are the image (I replied there with an explanation but it wouldn't kill me t remove it) and the title (I think changing the name is a fine idea if there is any concern but was not sure if we could do it now or if we have to wait until the review is closed for technical reasons).Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback. I have addressed the image, its FUR, and where it is placed. Your suggestions on other improvements were also taken care of (all good calls). Let me know if you think anything else is needed now or after another reading. And I will also make sure to change the title as son as this is closed out.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 4 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article University of Redwood, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the University of Redwood is fiction based on a copying of the entire Reed College website, raising concerns that it could be used to collect admission application fees fraudulently? 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see you're working on WMATA articles. I have a copy or Zachary Schagg's book The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro. [1] Unfortunately, I never got around to adding refs to Wikipedia from this book, but think they would be a good addition and has references to additional useful sources. Have you read this book or have a copy? If not, would you either 1) want to borrow my book or 2) want my help adding refs, though not sure when I'll have time to do it. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to borrow it. I do not have my own copy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll bring it on Wednesday. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the through review. I will start working on the issues. Also, I have finals in two weeks, so please, just bear with me. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

We are all volunteers. Racepacket (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Today, I addressed those issues found in the article's prose quality. I put the list from the talk page on my sandbox, and made some comments. Can I do so on the talk page where you originally put it (here)? Again, thanks for your hard work.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  07:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can replace what we have with your sandbox in Talk:California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona/GA1 but I have added three replies to your sandbox. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you Racepacket. I'm in the middle of finals and have my last one on Friday. I'm probably going to sleep right after, but I will work on Saturday and Sunday to a address all the issues. Again, thank you.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  20:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Racepacket, I have worked on the suggestions given by your GA review. Thank you for your arduous work and patience to work with me =) Take your time and let me know what you think. I will go over it this weekend to sand any rough edges.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  07:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Racepacket, I worked on the issues found on the latest revision. I have read the article twice today, looking for anything else. Some further recommendations for this article include, but are not limited to: prose, the replacement of some citations with material that can be found at Cal Poly Pomona’s library archives, and asking the university for permission to use old images that are copyrighted. Thank you. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  06:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

•  
  The Wikiproject Cal Poly Pomona Silver Medal
  Given by:

  Marco Guzman, Jr

  Awarded to Racepacket who, by doing an objective GA peer review, directly and indirectly improved the Cal Poly Pomona-related article California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. This article is (as of April 9, 2011) amongst Wikipedia's good articles. Issued at Pomona, California, on the eight day of April, two thousand eleven.

It has a good deal of work ahead of it however, it is VERY possible it can be accomplished in a 7 day hold period, mainly because it is a matter of adding needed work with some copy editing of the prose and not nearly as much removal of un-needed fluff.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up about the missing license. I have supplied it. I also have an alternative photo of the Zeus statue here which may be of interest. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for passing iLoo as GA! I've nominated it for FAC...you're welcome to extend your review there. Thanks again for making my first GA a pleasant experience=D.Smallman12q (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you tagged California State Route 241, M-6 (Michigan highway), and Interstate 95 in New Jersey for not having enough information discussing the controversy surrounding the construction of the road. These three articles adequately cover the details and do not go overboard like Maryland Route 200 does. I suggest that the tags be removed from these three articles. Dough4872 19:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Interstate 95 in New Jersey article has enough details concerning the history. It mentions the opposition the Somerset Freeway received that led to its cancellation. It does not need to ramble on like Opposition to Maryland Route 200 does. Dough4872 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey dude, I am glad to see you arranged a return, take care not to get into the same quagmire again. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a GA review not an accusasion. I wasn't slighting you. I didn't list the article, but that doesn't mean anything more then I was not ready to pass it. Had I not given my concerns and solutions or advice and just bullet point listed the problems alone would that have been any better? You are free to do what you feel is best for the article and resubmit at any time.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not done with my own "break", but I logged in today and noticed you're once again an editor in good standing. Welcome back, and sorry again for the bad timing regarding my need to be inactive for awhile. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Racepacket (talk). Now I am beginning to get a hang of it. I was wondering whether or not should I remove the stubs at this point? The article looks much cleaner and professional. I did a minor editing and added three of the names of the individuals who Lerner has interviewed in the past. Does the links to his radio interviews posted in Facebook, twitter, and other social media's political groups, etc. count as reliable sources? This is with considering the fact that Lerner's interview with the individuals such as Mayor of Toronto, Leader of Opposition in Ontario, Canada and Ministers, candidates, etc. have been posted in various social media, blogs, etc. With increasing social media presence that various political and news groups, as well as politicians and celebrities have, how do we treat them in terms of either being or not being a reliable source? Your insight on this is greatly appreciated. Watcherpost (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i just observed that you're the one who's gonna to review this article. Please clear me, do i've to quit for reviewing it further or there will be any involvement of me; also with due respect, tell me what was my fault in reviewing this article so that i won't make such mistakes in future. I criticized this article for these points:-

• Article has sections which are unnecessarily bulky, like Netball around the World, in which there are massive sub-sections (directly copied from their respective articles), my point was, if there are already articles exist for almost each section than what is the need of such over detailed sections here. Nominator (also the major contributor of this article) has myth in mind that GA means a bulky and stuffed article.

• Article claims that It is a popular sport in Commonwealth Nations, It became a popular woman's sport in countries, where it was introduced and spread through schools,etc. I asked users (related to this article) to either provide reliable third party sources or to change these contexts, because neither the netball is popular in all Commonwealth nations nor in the countries where it was introduced.

• Article has tabular data which is of no use; like Asian championship, Nations championship, Commonwealth Games all time medal table, etc. I don't know what's the need of such tables. There are respective articles for each competition/tournament where already these tables exist(i never said tables/bullet ain't allowed for GA, i asked for including only most relevant part). If this is the case that these types of tables are very important for articles, than why we don't use such on articles like Association Football or Baseball.

I never meant to be offence, i always wanna to do my job as good as possible. It was my first experience to review any article for GA. Nominator blamed me for being a less communicative with her, but i tried my best to explain her each and every point of my recommendations, may be i didn't answer few of her questions, but for that i told her that i was busy for a short while, but she's not ready to listen any of my point. I tried my best, gave her demo by restructuring and shortening the sections and providing valid references; but she's stuck to her view of article. Now its up to you, how you'll resolve this matter. Bill william compton^Talk 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will look at it with an open mind. After many GA reviews, I find that it is a matter of personal chemistry. We are all volunteers trying to do what we believe is best to build an encyclopedia, with people becoming emotionally involved to varying degrees. Some people want specific, concrete suggestions while others take guidance as condescending. We all need to get along while finding a way to work toward improvement and high article quality. I will try to help. Racepacket (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thanks for getting involved at WP:FAC. If you're new to the area (I don't recall seeing your name until just recently), I encourage you to review Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches for some good tips on reviewing and, more important, making sure your reviews are substantive and useful to the nominators and FAC delegates who promote and archive nominations. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A bit of both. I noticed a few of your comments that are simple declarations of "support" which don't give us an indication of what you reviewed or that you applied the FAC criteria to your review. Most reviewers find at least a handful of issues at first, or provide us with an idea of what they looked at: the quality of writing, the sourcing, etc. We're also trying to make an effort to reach out to new reviewers (I apologize if you are not new, but as I said, I am noticing your name for the first time), help them understand the system, and hopefully stick around. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I responded at the DYK page. — Hunter Kahn 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Virginia Board of Health at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 16 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Hynes (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mary Hynes, who represents Virginia on the board of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, has promised to ride its Metrorail system to get to board meetings? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:CayugaNatureCenter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would have preferred if you had asked me first if I was done with my intended work before putting it up for GA again. There is still additional work in a couple of areas of the article I'm planning to do. There is no race to submit GA's ... Wasted Time R (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to get to my remaining changes in the next few days ... usually there's slack before any reviewer comes, although since this is the only article up now in its topic it might find a reviewer quickly. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why there should be a separate F. R. Newman Arboretum article, and I propose to merge its contents into Cornell Plantations and redirect it there. The sources I've seen all refer to Cornell Plantations even when they are talking about the arboretum; I don't think the name F. R. Newman Arboretum has much independent notability. And right now the Plantations article has much more description and back history about the arboretum than the arboretum article itself does, which as I said in my GA review is an unsatisfactory, upside-down state of affairs. Let me know if you object to this, otherwise I'll move forward and do it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've now finished all the additions/changes I had in mind, and think it is GA worthy. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ryan Neil Falcone has returned with the usual shenanigans outlined here. You might want to put Aaron Raitiere and Peter Shalvoy on your watchlist in case they too rise from the dead. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Responding to your comment on my talk page, I think there are now plenty of people with these on watch, so they'll definitely get scrutinized, and if indicated, taken to AfD. Another one I'm watching is John A. Ware. Voceditenore (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please cease your tagging with {{notability}}; this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (see WP:POINT). --Rschen7754 06:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not making any point, I am finding articles that are not notable and if references are not produced, I will bring them to AfD. Racepacket (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're about six years or more behind the times. WP:USRD/P documents the precedents, but consensus has been that state highways are considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Additionally, consensus is that maps are valid secondary sources. Raw GIS data and satellite or aerial photography are the primary sources. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are they reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (i.e., the state highway department?) Racepacket (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, Bing Maps are independent of the DOT. Ditto Rand McNally or other cartography companies. Imzadi 1979 → 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to send the articles to AFD if you wish, but please keep in mind that you are unlikely to overturn six years of precedent. --Rschen7754 07:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not "substantial" and given the number of page views, not of interest to our readers. As for the precedents, there are a number of articles that were deleted. Racepacket (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The deleted articles were either about city streets, county roads, listcruft, minor trivia, or roads that didn't exist. Articles on state highways, by and large, have been kept over the years as attempts to delete them have been rejected. Imzadi 1979 → 08:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If they are notable, they would have independent, substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Most journalist don't even know that these exist, and as best I can determine, have never written about them. Racepacket (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again you're welcome to send the articles to AFD if you so wish. --Rschen7754 08:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 17 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Georgia v. South Carolina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Georgia v. South Carolina decided the seaward border between Georgia and South Carolina? 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Me finding sources... I'll fix soon those minor problems.--Wustenfuchs 14:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have edited/responded. I am watching the review page. Savidan 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Racepacket, as on your appeal i placed a note on the GA Review of Netball to make sure that each and everyone concerned with this review could aware of fact that you're the only reviewer of this article; but for this, User:KnowIG used slang term against me on my talk page and its very much clear that he's giving me some kind of threat to stay away from Netball and any review, this is not a first time he did it to me. Please tell me what should i do, this is first time any user on Wikipedia become so abusive. I placed that note only because you asked me to do so. Bill william compton^Talk 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

How about you place it in the section he requested instead of being antagonistic. KnowIG (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Racepacket. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2, where you may want to participate. Rschen7754 08:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your prompt attention at the RFC is requested. If you do not respond to the RFC, and you continue the disputed behaviors, then we will be forced to take this to further venues. --Rschen7754 00:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You obviously spent weeks gathering your materials. I am working on it and need some time. Thanks, Racepacket (talk)

In all honesty, it took less than 24 hours. It is clear that you are not interested in working to resolve these concerns (either the USRD ones or the Netball ones). You have continued reviewing GANs when the RFC is based on your GAN reviewing. Therefore, if you keep giving clearly controversial GAN reviews and ignoring this RFC, this matter will be promptly brought to the attention of a higher venue. --Rschen7754 05:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really need more time to research your items which goes back many months. This takes a lot of time going through all of the diffs. I am sure you want a thoughtful and carefully research response. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but then your disputed behavior needs to stop in the meantime. Otherwise, further proceedings will take place very shortly. --Rschen7754 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I promise not to review any articles nominated by you, Doug or Imsadi until we can talk things out. Racepacket (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That avoids the conflict of interest question, but the issue remains that a lot of people are very unhappy with your GAN reviews. As that's what the RFC is about, you shouldn't be doing any more until the RFC is over and done with. If you refuse to stop the disputed behavior and you refuse to listen to criticism, that puts all of us in a very unpleasant situation. --Rschen7754 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a specific proposed solution to the RfC/U on the table for discussion. Can you please reply to the content of that seven-point proposal? It's quite simple: either accept or reject it. A third option is to suggest modifications if in general you accept parts of the proposal. Refusing to answer that basic question and continuing to debate and argue the situation will get none of us anywhere. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your suggestion. Again, I am waiting for the RFC/U proponents to jointly make a comprehensive proposal. If I negotiate with just one of you, I run the risk that the other two will jump back in and ask for more. So I am waiting to hear from Rschen and Doug. Racepacket (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have pinged both Rschen and Dough to directly comment on the proposal, but based on my own opinion, I don't think they want more than what I've asked. We will see what they indicate. Imzadi 1979 → 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

We're still waiting for an answer. The other two co-certifying parties have endorsed the proposed solution. Laura's offered her own desires, but honestly, they seem to mirror parts of mine. Can we get an answer to the question I posed earlier? Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many updates today, following on your work, recommendations and suggestions from another editor. I think this draft is now demonstrably better than the one in the existing article, although I'm not quite sure how far it needs to get before it's moved into the mainspace. I'll keep working on it in the meantime, and I invite you to offer any subsequent thoughts you may have. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 23 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ithaca Discovery Trail, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Ithaca Discovery Trail, a collaboration among seven hands-on museums and the public library in Tompkins County, New York, hosts 2,900 students on field trips each year? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 24 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virginia Board of Health, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Virginia Board of Health became involved in a controversy over abortion access when it was required to regulate outpatient clinics that perform first trimester abortions? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw your note on my talk page. I hadn't noticed the article was at GAN when I edited it and I didn't see the talk page. I don't have any GAs myself and I was just editing the article in passing. After having a look at the GA review, I would feel pretty uncomfortable stepping into what is clearly a pretty contentious review when I'm not anywhere near an expert on the subject. So I appreciate your note, but sorry I don't feel comfortable stepping in there. Having said that, good luck and I hope the article does becomes a GA. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ditto, basically. I've never created a GA and I've never participated in a GA nomination, so I don't feel comfortable finishing the review. Graham87 00:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Racepacket. Even though the GAN has been closed, had I gotten your message earlier I would have recommended that the GAN been withdrawn/failed for now. The remaining issues would have produced even more drawn out discussion than what was already on the GA1 page. Laura and I (and anyone else who wants to help) will work through the article and renominate at a more appropriate time. (My personal opinion was that the article was nominated too soon in the first place. Hopefully GA2 won't have to deal with as many issues as GA1.) FWIW, while I didn't agree with everything in the review, I saw nothing to indicate clearcut bad faith by any editor, despite the heated nature of the discussions and the occasional (or repeated) overstepping of bounds. Here's hoping GA2 goes more smoothly. On another note, I'm thinking of trying GA reviews myself (after this one, I can't imagine other cases being too difficult) ... one thing at a time, though. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Racepacket, I think although it was withdrawn it was the right thing to do. It ended up being very confusing and hard to know for me personally what issues had been resolved and what hadn't, plus I although can get books, do not have the time to be able to sift through a load of books for a 'recreational' project, as evidently I would have to add stuff to satisfy the demands. Plus you kept saying we've only got like 10 things to do and kept bringing things up which are not GA, and I couldn't exactly see what the resolution was and knew there was outstanding stuff from earlier. and also requesting things which you don't need. Also with the POV stuff almost as bad as Bill's attempt, and I wouldn't take that comparisant lightly, since you are a native English speaker and can easily imply what is and is not biased. Particually considering how bad Bill's English is and I didn't see much bias, and at the end of the day it was tricky to know what the pair of you were after. Do I think it's worthy of a GA right now yes as it ticks every box. However I do think that Laura has, seemed to nominate articles that are a bit premature. And her wanting it to be delt with quickly for her project fair enough. Usually I would be happy to nom and let it sit there whilst work happens on it before reviewing.

However you have a RFC against you and I've unfortunatly had to state the whole opening withdrawing nonsense from last night and support some of the nonsense seen on the GA review. Despite you and Laura having differences you didn't help yourself by being pendantic and extending the review way beyond what was required. With the offline stuff assume good faith and you're ment to work with not against the nominator. Look at my GA's on the drive page. For instance with the Ice hockey stuff I have to work with the nominator as they know American English better than me. With the legacy of the Russian guy I've had to work with the nominator ask some questions and as you can see there responses mean I have to accept good faith and not keep pushing them and asking for nonsense things. But until the RFC is sorted you shouldn't edit anything. Just make your case and be willing to say sorry and comprimise and please don't canvass others. And when the netball article is back at GA assuming you're not indef or on a long block please don't review it, as I don't think your second review and your comments on third the Cook Island article were wise. If you take a break and prove that you can work with people then you'll enjoy wikipedia better, just like I'm having to step back everytime I consider seeing an edit as retared, and let my emotions go offline or type something but not post it. It seems to be the case with you needing to listen comprimise and follow the rules properly. The whole copying text thing was your issue not Laura's who has from a check paraphrased and sourced which imo is perfectly alright to do. She hasn't copied anything nor paraphrased and not used a source.

For now as I say sort yourself out on the RFC and don't review netball agian nor comment with Laura. You haven't helped yourself and yes the review should remain close as a semi outsider like myself can not see the wood from the trees so to speak, so I doubt anybody close would either. All the best KnowIG (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know despite all of the stuff going on that you're still a busy character. Any chance you could address the table on the WMATA's Orange Line? I think you misinterpreted it a slight, I never saw the table as a problem, I feel like its incomplete, mileposts, platforms, ticket machines, and other needs (ADA of 1990 improvements) would be mighty useful. :) - You made it a good start, but still, there's room for improvement. In no way is it a problem or a waste. In fact, an article in that standard shouldn't be considered complete until one is added.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your suggestion. I suggest that you raise it at WT:WikiProject Washington Metro because it appears that the group standardized on just the bullet list. The station list also is a part of the drop-down from the infobox. I included a table to show utilization and relative importance of the stations, rather than trying to document all aspects of each station. Another alternative would be to add the suggested information on List of Washington Metro stations that is already in a table format with many columns of detail, and a proposal could be made on the corresponding talk page. I am completely agnostic on whether the table should stay, should go or should be expanded. I suspect that others may worry a bit about uniformity. My personal touchstone is "what would a reader expect and find useful." As for the ADA modification, Metro was ahead of its time on accessiblity, and the 1990 improvements should be covered in Washington Metro because it applies equally to every train station. (For example, although they used a contrasting granite strip to help seeing impaired riders find the platform edge, they added bumpy tiles near the strip to help riders with total vision loss. On your final suggestion, all Metrorail stations have the same fare machines, attendant kiosks, and gate mechanisms although in slightly different placements. Right now I am reading through old diffs. Racepacket (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thank you very much for your review! I believe I have addressed most of the issues you raised. If you could clarify a bit on 2A, that would be awesome. I have added some additional material to fill out some concerns you raised. Canada Hky (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, your review has been a huge help. I believe I have addressed your second round of comments  :) Canada Hky (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you back. I am doing some research into the German / Ukraine connection, and should be able to address it later today. Thanks very much for your help with the article.  :) Canada Hky (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I addressed the issue correctly. I left a note for Stone on his user page, and I think he is good with it as well. Please let me know if there is anything else. :D Canada Hky (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, your GA nomination of Blue Line (Washington Metro) has failed. I felt like it did not meet the GA Criteria. The article can be renominated later when the issues are addressed. --PCB 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have answered your questions. --PCB 04:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just ignore KnowIG as he does not know what he is talking about most of the time. He calls other people/user stupid and such things so don´t stop doing what you do because of him. You come up with arguments and he does not so... ;) I´m with you to change the name of the article or merge it. I just don´t see a reason to discuss it further with KnowIG. Kante4 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

He was indefinitely blocked and his talk page privileges removed. In the meantime, please take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Federation_of_Netball_Associations#Merger_proposal and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Netball/archive1 Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article Yellow Line (Washington Metro) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Yellow Line (Washington Metro) for things which need to be addressed. --PCB 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Racepacket (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am currently in a dispute with User:Hawkeye7 regarding his practice of doing GA reviews on articles in which he has made substantial edits prior to the review. The GA review criteria prohibit such reviews. Yet, he has made a number of them. As a violation of WP:INVOLVED, he has blocked me for disruptive editing, without any warning or specification for what editing he found disruptive. I assume it involves our work on improving Wikipedia's coverge of the sport of Netball. I want such articles to be accurate, while others are seeking to glorify them by coining ambiguous terms like "Olympic-recognized sport" and misapplying the term "Olympic sport" to netball (a game that is not played in the Olympics. I have discussed my differences in a calm and polite manner. In return, I have been falsely accused of racism, sexism, and even of harboring anti-netball bias. I have also been falsely accused in an RFC/U of accusing another editor of plagiarism, but that editor can not produce a single diff to back up her claims. Given our recent interactions, Hawkeye7 is clearly involved, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." If he is involved, he should not be blocking. I certainly did not mean to be annoying, but I am trying to hold us all to the Wikipedia GA criteria. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I disagree with Hawkeye's initial assessment that blocking you was appropriate. Regardless of your behaviour, he has an obvious COI in this matter. I also disagree with him that 48 hours was an acceptable block limit; your behaviour is such that it demands a greater restriction. Really, you should have taken the RfC and the many, many blocks and complaints as something of a hint. Therefore, as a neutral administrator, I'm unblocking you and then, as a neutral administrator, reblocking you. See you in a week. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've asked Hawkeye7 ‎to comment here. I've worked on a number of articles with Hawkeye7 over the years, so I won't review this block myself, though I do note that some quite serious concerns have been raised in the RfC/U concerning Racepacket's conduct in the netball article's GA review and elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused- what "harassment and disruptive editing" has been done, exactly? Can one of the blocking admins lay out some documentation- if you're done with your conflicts of interest and your cattiness, that is? This situation looks utterly ridiculous to me. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See this for why there's a block and this for why it's a week long. If you're accusing me of a conflict of interest you might do well to actually read the unblock/block discussion. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're using an active, unresolved RFC to justify punishment toward a user, and you're denying the user the right to participate in that discussion further? How does that make sense? —Bill Price (nyb) 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Let me put it this way: Some users have found Racepacket to be abrasive, while others have had no problem with him. All agree that he is very thorough and meticulous in finding issues which require some form of resolution. The RFC- in part- is to determine whether his doggedness is harassment or thoroughness, and users have expressed support on both sides. Simply proclaiming him guilty of harassment based on an ongoing discussion- and then blocking him from participation in that discussion- is horribly backward. —Bill Price (nyb) 16:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not at all; the block is for the issues on my talkpage. I have made this clear. The issues raised at the RfC - such as his past behaviour, which nobody can doubt has been problematic - are the reasons for the length. Quite frankly it's nothing about "punishment", not "punishment" being justified by an RfC. If Racepacket wishes to contribute he is welcome to - in a week's time. I am not proclaiming him guilty on anything based on an ongoing discussion, I am saying, based on one set of diffs, that He Has Screwed Up. If you think his behaviour there was appropriate, do say so. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the above comments because I honestly had no idea that those views were being held or that exchange on the Ironholds talk page occured. Obviously, I have the opposite perspective. I went into Netball in good faith looking forward to helping the group of editors working on it. It was only later that I learned that the article was her PhD research project. While rapport was good, I say "Netball in the Cook Islands" was up for review and decided it would be more efficient to review both at the same time. All of the editors agreed that I was taking over the Netball review from Bill and would be the one to close it. Soon problems emerged. I worked at a US office of a top London lawfirm for five years, and the practice there was that the American lawyers sent internal email in American English and the English lawyers sent internal emails in British English, and everyone assumed that the spelling would be correct in whatever went out the door. I tried the same practice on the review pages, but was nitpicked over the American spellings of my messages even though the nominator was from Illinois. I then offered grammar corrections and was told that "New Zealand grammar" is different than the rest of the world's English. The nominator then deliberately misread my use of "women's basketball" as refering to netball, even though that usage has not been common for 40 years and these countries have Olympic women's basketball teams. The article insisted that netball was an "Olympic sport" even though it does not meet the Wikipedia definition, and I wss told that British English had a different meaning. I brought in a British editor who confirmed that the British followed the same understanding and the article was wrong. I gave them one last chance to make the outlined corrections, and when they refused, I failed the Cook Island review. The main Netball review had sprawled, so I compiled a list of all issues raised so we could agree on what was still open and what actions were to be taken to finish the review. That list included "15. Need to assure that there are no close paraphrase problems, particularly in the position descriptions" based on that item, LauraHale has claimed over a dozen times that I had accused her of "plagarism" which has been repeated by Hawkeye7 on Ironhold's talk page. She proposed that we terminate the review and I proposed that we see whether the other active editors would like to finish it instead. While I was canvassing their view, she started inventing reasons (which she did not voice before) that I was being racist, sexist, and finally anti-Netball (a sport I had never read about until the review.)

Rather than rework the articles, she immediately renominated them. In each case Hawkeye7 undertook the review although he had made substantial edits prior to the review, which I noted. I repeated a few of my specific concerns on Cook Island and those changes were made, but the reviews lacked any transparency of substantive comments between reviewer and nominee.

LauraHale then nominated a day old article Netball at the Olympics which I failed as unstable and strongly suggested that she wait 30 days for other editors to discover and vet the new article. She then renominated it and Hawkeye7 started a review. I included diffs showing where he had made substantive changes to the article. Now we come to last night's confusion. The article was renamed twice in rapid succession and after the second rename I discovered that Netball and the Olympic Movement was awaiting a review. So I reviewed it, which is allowed under all policy. My good faith review has been deleted even from my contribution history, but it essentially said that I reviewed the article before, it is still unstable and that the nominator should wait 30 days before renominating it." I gather from the Ironhold talk page that this is what prompted the block. It was merely a good faith attempt to clear up our GA backlog by issuing a review that applied GA criteria 5 -stability, and was not an attempt to game the system. Note that my review was posted around 2 a.m. while the talk page was moved at 1:30 a.m. So, it was not as if I jumped in a few seconds after the article and talk pages were moved to take advantage of some technical glitch. Rather, a half hour after the move, the article was awaiting a review, and I reviewed it.

Finally, although not to justify my actions, I feel that LauraHale has been mischaracterized as a "new user victim.' Her first edit was on September 17, 2010, and she has 1,559 edits. Rather than being a passive victim, she quickly took her "plagarism accusation claim" to various places outside the review: she has made two postings outside the reviews that are a drastic distortion of the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&action=historysubmit&diff=420291085&oldid=420288992 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FRacepacket_2&action=historysubmit&diff=420308748&oldid=420124218. She has made petty changes to the GA clean up project statistics page, challenged my claiming WikiCup points, and edit warred with me over placing merger templates to announce an on-going merger proposal. In each case, I have tried to be reasonable with her:

• merger templates
• explained no plagiarism allegation
• explain WikiCup scoring
• asking why she deleted talk page comments and edited GA sweeps statistics page

I am trying to be reasonable in the face of what is a systematic and ongoing campaign which may be designed to somehow provoke me to violate policy -- which I promise I will uphold. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) To go through that rather TL:DR schpiel;Reply

1. Users with significant contributions to an article are advised not to review it. Hawkeye's contributions were six edits, accumulating an entire 1kb of text and markup
2. I'm struggling to see how "it had moved location!" is a workable defence here. You're telling me the prior GA review didn't ring any bells? And neither did the content?
3. I'm not paying attention to LauraHale's experience or lack thereof. I don't feel it's important, and I'm pretty sure it hasn't brought up directly to me.
4. I appreciate that you're trying to help. I appreciate that you're trying to do good work. But really, with the disputes you've had with these users in the past, how can you not take that as a hint, whether you feel you're in the right or the wrong, that staying away from them is A Good Thing? Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

As a general comment I think it somewhat innapropriate to block a user who is the recipient of an active RFC. If the user cannot comment then they have no way to explain or justify their actions and frankly I haven't seen any recent activity thats troubling outside those that happened previously and were already dealt with. --Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

He's had 5 days to respond to the RFC and has failed to do so. --Rschen7754 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have been working on a response, but it has been difficult with all of the added drama when LauraHale came in and kept amending her "outside" views. This is very complicated and is requiring me to do some research into the GA process and relationships with WikiProjects. As I have indicated in my talk page comments above, I will respond after I formulate a well-reseached position. There is a lot of stuff to review. As I understand it, RFC/U go for 30 days or more, so I am sure that it will still be there when the block expires. We all have a lot of other obligations in life. Racepacket (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll bet that what's taking you so long is your continuing the disputed behavior (reviewing LauraHale's GANs) while you're doing your research. If it takes you days to write a tl;dr response, you're going about it wrong. The response to a RFC should clearly and concisely state why the accusations made are incorrect. If it takes you more than two hours to go through those diffs, you're doing it wrong. We put together the RFC in under 24 hours, and that included several lengthy breaks doing other work on Wikipedia (such as doing research for the actual writing of articles!) --Rschen7754 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would submit that a better way to go about responding to an RfC would be to reveal an understanding of why the issues are being brought up, why your actions may have been taken as offensive, and some commentary on how you plan to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to an RfC being filed to begin with. Racepacket, what I see above looks more like you digging in your heels. If you're spending a lot of time trying to find the most logically-justified and charming way to dig in your heels, I won't be very impressed. You've made some fine contributions to the project, but your efforts at playing nicely with other users -- in some instances -- could use some work. -Pete (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You mean events which happened 10 hours ago and were dealt with by a block? Those events? And yes, it is problematic blocking a user who is the subject of an RfC. It means they can't contribute. On the other hand, maybe they should take that into consideration when taking action on things. I was not aware we gave people immunity from screwing up, for screwing up, to address the fact that they've screwed up. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand what Ironholds is saying. First, I would ask you to read the four bullet point diffs above. I am being polite in responding to her coming into my sphere - scoring of WikiCup, counting reviews for GA Sweeps. etc. I was willing to stand back and let other people deal with her and the substantive problems, for example if someone else had done an impartial GA review after I had failed the three netball articles. But instead there is gaming the system between Hawkeye7 and LauraHale. When Netball/GA1 failed it had serious problems, and when it reached FAC the following week serious problems are being aired again. Isn't odd that Hawkeye7 rated it GA in between without finding grounds for a single adverse comment?

Second, I knew that I had failed the Netball at the Olympics article in its prior form and its prior name with a strong suggestion that it mature for 30 days before renominating it again. However, I honestly thought that it was being renominated again last night, so I failed it for the logical reasons stated in the deleted edit that you can read, but I no longer can. (perhaps you could userfy the review for me.) The only way I learned that this was a "bug" or a mistake and that Hawkeye7 had intended to extend his review was when I read your talk page an hour ago. There was no communication from Hawkeye7 as to why the article became a newly renominated for GA review article. It is not as though the people who were discussing this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics had reached a consensus on renaming. Everyone felt that there was something wrong here. I proposed a merger, but Hawkeye7 did two moves without any on-wiki discussion. (I suspect that there is off-wiki collaboration going on here.) If he had discussed it on-wiki, I would have been willing to back-off and let him continue his review. So I believe that it was a software "screw-up" not my "screw-up."

Third, it is not clear what you want. The articles do not meet the GA criteria (or FA criteria) as an objective fact. LauraHale is committed to bring Netball to FA on a very rapid time-table and to write up a "how to" manual for replicating her efforts by others. Perhaps Racepacket and Ironholds are two pawns on some chessboard that will be revealed when she publishes her thesis. What would you suggest? Racepacket (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Racepacket, you state above that "When Netball/GA1 failed it had serious problems" and later, "The articles do not meet the GA criteria…as an objective fact." This is not fact. This is your opinion. I think you are having difficulty recognizing how emotionally involved you have become in this issue. It is not your job to protect Wikipedia from advancing a GA that does not meet your interpretation of the GA criteria. If you cannot live with the possibility that an article you had some involvement with was advanced to GA when you thought it shouldn't be, it's possible you're working on the wrong encyclopedia. (Or, more likely, that you simply need a break -- and an opportunity to read through the various comments at the RfC from a less defensive perspective.) -Pete (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If an article has been listed as a GA inappropriately, there are already procedures to deal with that issue. Recently, I initiated reassessments of both Wisconsin Highway 131 and Interstate 43, which at the time, were deficient in terms of references. Both articles used Wisconsin Highways, a self-published source. The inclusion of that source meant that the two articles did not meet the criteria to be listed as a GA. WIS 131 was delisted after a week-long hold period, and I-43 was summarily delisted because there were other concerns. In short, there was a process, it was followed, and two articles that didn't meet the criteria were delisted using that process. If you feel so strongly about the various Netball articles, wait an appropriate period of time, revisit them and initiate reassessment, either through the individual process or the community process. Either your concerns will be addressed by improving the article or by delisting it. Other methods invite controversy and drama and they do not benefit the overall community. Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, this block is good because it will force you to slow down and calm down and figure out why people are quite upset with you. If your behavior does not improve after the block, further proceedings will be initiated that are much worse than a RFC. --Rschen7754 04:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 28 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cayuga Nature Center, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Cayuga Nature Center has a rope climbing / rope bridge course? 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.

Cheers, BigDom 08:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I don't know why you're blocked, but on the Getty Villa article just add some references to the introductory section. It's so easy to do but it often gets overlooked because the info there is so broad it seems a "waste" of a reference, so to speak. Other than that it looks fine to meet GA criteria. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see that in the last review, they thought it basically met none of the criteria, except no edit wars. Maybe that's just because the person didn't like you, I don't know. The article does not have that great of a flow to it, but a GA status is not supossed to be that difficult to achieve. I'm sure at times it gets treated as if it were as prominent as an FA status. Go read a world book, most substantial entries on wikippedia I find much better than world book entries. They are often short and simply written. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Block evasion is a no-no, particularly when socking is something you've been slapped for before.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Racepacket (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have no idea what Ironholds is talking about. Ironholds has now provided an explanation for this block, and as discussed below, I have not been evading the block, I have just been compiling materials on my hard drive for uploading after the block expires and communicating with my copyright monitor, members of the Wikimania organizing committee, and other editors by email. Those activities are allowed. Again, all of my actions, including those that prompted my original block by Hawkeye7 have been within policy. An there is no factual basis for any of this, and it appears to be attributable to further harassment by User:LauraHale, who has still to provide any evidence of her original accusation (that was repeated by Hawkeye7 to Ironholds) of "plagiarism." Thanks,

Accept reason:

Block Expired  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

quack. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. I now see that this is being initiated by User:LauraHale who has not been leaving the required notices on my talk page. Just as is the case with her groundless "He accused me of plagiarism" complaint, she appears to have me confused with another editor. Looking over the history to Netball and the Olympic Movement there is an edit by IP 158.59.127.249, which is not my IP address. Looking at the edit history of that IP shows three edits on March 28: Climate of New Zealand, Singapore and the edit which bothered her. Looking at the rest of the history shows prior edits to Climate of New Zealand. Given that Netball is popular in New Zealand and Asia, it is not surprizing that someone with those long-term interests would be editing the article, and as the Check User clerk explains, there is nothing that links those edits to me. We are again faced with the fundamental problem of LauraHale misinterpreting the source materials, making logical leaps to fit her desired conclusions, and (if you look carefully at her reaction to the IP's edit) failure to evaluate and deal fairly with views inconsistent with her own. Someone disagrees with her, so she immediately sees a conspiracy. She is violating WP:AGF and WP:HARRASS. I have a long-term involvement in Olympic articles and earned a barnstar for my coverage of the 2008 Summer Games, but there are many people who write in the same area, and a number of people who have disagreed with her Netball and the Olympic Movement article, its name and scope.[2] It is not unexpected that more viewers would disagree or attempt to edit her text. However, since the start of my GA review of the Netball article, I have not made a single edit of text in any Netball-related article. (I have added merger notice templates, which User:LauraHale has removed repeatedly in violation of WP:PM.) Given that she has never seen me edit article space, she has no basis to claim "Edit tone extremely similar to User:Racepacket."

LauraHale falsely claims "User:Racepacket has gotten into other disputes about what constitutes a sport", but if you look at that that reference, it refers to a discussion about the relative scope of WikiProject Running and a new WikiProject Athletics, not "what constitutes a sport." Here, I have never disputed the scope of WikiProject Netball, nor has the IP in question. So there is no similiarity. Again, LauraHale disagrees with the rest of Wikipedia on the definition of Olympic sport. Wikipedia is working hard to comply with all applicable laws, including copyright and trademark laws, particularly 36 U.S.C. § 220506, and LauraHale is very embattled against anyone, be it experienced GA reviewer or IP editor, who questions her approach to compliance.

She argues that the IP took part in an AfD in which I also took part. The IP wanted to save the article, but I left critical comments in response to the IPs. So, at most she has proven that the IP is a friend of Jim Hurysz (which I am not.)

She argues that the IP edited Wikipedia during the Feb 4 - Feb 25 period that I was blocked for "close paraphrasing." During that period there was one edit that is vandalism like nothing that I have ever written on Wikipedia. During the June 17-27, 2009 block, this IP shows no edits whatsoever. So that claim falls as well.

Finally, just because "No other IP address edits have been made to the article" that was only five days old and only 16 hours at its current name is not surprising and is does not support her theory that I was behind the edit. Every article has IP editors, and a five day delay before the first IP edit does not prove anything.

In sum, LauraHale's argument, which was made with no notice to me, does not stand up to scrutiny and is consistent with her continued harassment of me. Thank you. Racepacket (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

From the instructions at WP:SPI: "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." As for the SPI itself, you have been caught evading a block in the past. This IP originates from the Arlington area, which is an area of the country to which you have known ties. The IP also edited an article with which you have taken issue recently. Imzadi 1979 → 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

PCB: I am sending the revised article out for review and will upload it as soon as I am able. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Passed. — PCB 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Several people have asked me about the laws governing the use of the trademarked word "Olympic" that forms the source of the substantive dispute between myself and User:LauraHale. As you know, WMF is based in the United States and tries to comply with US laws. The Congress gives special protection over the use of that word because some people try to glamorize their cause by suggesting a false association with the Olympics. The law says:

[T]he corporation has the exclusive right to use— (4) the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympiad”, “Pan-American”, “America Espirito Sport Fraternite”, or any combination of those words. 36 U.S.C. § 220506

The USOC is noted for being strict in its enforcement of its rights to control those words, Woods, Molly (February 5, 2010). "On the word blacklist: Olympics, Super Bowl, CES". CNET News. Retrieved 2011-03-30., to the point of being satirized on the Colbert Report. "Stephen Colbert Olympics Coverage Explains Trademark Law". Broadcast Law Blog. March 2, 2010.

As indicated in the Olympic sport article, we call only sports that are played in the Olympics, "Olympic sports." But sports that are not played in the Olympics do not have the right to publicize themselves with the word "Olympic." So, calling netball an "Olympic sport" or even an "Olympic recognized sport" is not allowed. The 32 sports on the edge of being admitted to the Olympics have to walk a tightrope with care, and they have formed the "Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations" with the website http://www.arisf.org/. That website is very careful not to use the phrase "Olympic recognised sport." That is because the IOC recognizes international federations based on the characteristics of the federation, not the merits of the sport. Once the IOC blesses the sport for inclusion in the Olympic games, it becomes an Olympic sport. Netball is not an Olympic sport, nor an Olympic recognized sport, the the promoters of netball are prohibited by law from using the word "Olympic" to describe themselves. If netball and its organizers and proponents are not allowed to describe themselves as Olympic, how can Wikipedians do so?

Nor should Wikipedia keep User:LauraHale's new category of Olympic recognised sports.[3] The Category:IOC-recognised international federations, which has been around for years, does not create similar trademark problems. The logical leap from an IOC-recognised internation federation to an "Olympic recgnized sport" is impermissible WP:SYN.

Whatever makes you think Wikipedia is bound by or concerned about trademark issues? For the same reason we don't say Pepsi™ or Coke™, we're not legally bound by the IOC's strictures regarding use of the "Olympic". We can even refer to xeroxing something if we're citing a reliable source. We can refer to a sport as "Olympic" if we're citing a reliable source. But we're not bound by trademark rules; we're not promoting a business or a product, but rather describing businesses or products. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jpgordon: Thank you for asking. This is not an ordinary trademark, and this law lacks the common defenses of the Lanham Act. Apart from the law, WikiProject Olympics has been trying to be technically correct and makes references to the IOC's style guidance. (Please read the current project talk page.) Ironically, User:LauraHale's eagerness to promote netball and its quest for inclusion in the Olympic games may be hurt by failing to abide by the IOC's rules on this subject. Finally, if a source is sloppy enough to conflate an IOC-recognised international federation with an "Olympic sport" how reliable can it be? Racepacket (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not very; I don't have an opinion about the netball issue, just about reliable sourcing. But by the same logic, we cannot use the word "Olympics" at all. Anywhere. Even in an article about the Olympics. Do we have the USOC's permission (per the corporations "exclusive right to use") to use the word? Even if we have such permission, is use of the word in keeping with the Creative Commons license? I know this is a reduction to absurdity, but that's the real effect of disallowing use of a word in this way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand the concern. For example, could Congress pass a law prohibiting the use of the word "Congress" in any writing critical of its actions? The answer is yes, but it would not survive a First Amendment challenge. The missing part of your argument is that both the IOC and the USOC have granted a blanket license to use certain words as well as the Olympic graphic symbols to the public (including the media) to write about the Olympics. The question is whether WMF should honor those license limitations? That is a policy issue above my pay grade, but it should be decided thoughtfully rather than dismissively. In the meantime, I will edit in a manner that honors the intellectual property rights of others to the extent that I am aware of them. Given that the licensing of these Olympic symbols is very complex, I would not upload them to Commons as free use, because they are protected by more than just the copyright law. Besides the US law quoted above there are similar laws in other countries. LauraHale's Australia has the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 amended by the Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Act 1994. Racepacket (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is interesting to see how the sources cited in Netball and the Olympic Movement handle the phrasing. For example, the 1995 Annual report of Netball Australia (fn. 13) says on page 6, "Netball now has permanent recognition by the IOC following a two year probationary period." Taylor at page 67 (fn. 11) writes, "Adding to its enhanced status, and some twenty years after lodging its first application, netball was recognised by the International Olympic Committee allowing national association access to membership of their country's National Olympic Committee in 1993." Fn. 12 is a floor speech in the New South Wales Parliament, where a member incorrectly used her terminology, "Honourable members may be unaware that technically, at least, netball is an Olympic sport. It was recognised as such in 1995, but it is not included in the summer Olympics program." Does anyone know if speeches on the floor of the NSW Parliament are exempt from the laws covering the use of "Olympic"? The IFNA website incorrectly states, "In 1995 Netball became a 'recognized' Olympic sport and one of IFNAs objectives is to ensure this status is retained and encourage the International Olympic Committee to include Netball in the Olympic Games Programme in the future." but the website was rather sloppy and even incorrectly identified "Association of Recognised Sports Federations".

I wanted to preserve the following discussion on Racepacket's talk page because it explains why his sockpuppetry accusation was overturned and the related block canceled. No mention of that decision- let alone an apology- has been made on this page by any of the involved administrators. Note that as of this edit, his unblock request regarding the sockpuppetry accusation hasn't even been responded to, despite the fact that the block was canceled and replaced with a different block of a different justification. I'm furious over how clumsy and hamfisted the involved administrators have proven to be in this case. —Bill Price (nyb) 15:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Just to say, my concern was with the sock allegation, via a circuitous route, and not as a result of being contacted by Racepacket. I have not examined the circumstances surrounding his prior block, so can make no comment at this moment as to that. If he wants to make an appeal against the prior block (or have his appeal above reviewed as an appeal against that block) then this should be done in the normal way of such things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is   Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H.   Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 ed17 01:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

First of all, my apologies, I was working on Ante Pavelić at the same time. Ofcourse we can. I just prioritize Ante Pavelić since I started working ther earlier then on Rockefeller. But please, youll need to explain me few things, since we I'm alredy writing a message, so I can ask you: How to wikify natural gas? I'm confused ther.

Know what, I'll do this tommorow what I can do, and I'll report you what I failed to do. Is that good?--Wustenfuchs 20:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain me this "Is it factually accurate and verifiable" in GA review, since I don't understand how can I fix format, and why is that link naked... an all. I didn't noticed that link is naked, that is, nothing is writen on it, us I understand. And this with format, what do you mean?--Wustenfuchs 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to comment about the collaboration for the newsletter. I just added the writeup on the collaboration a little while ago here if you want to take a look. I'm not sure the last 2 sentences quite make sense but I can't put my finger on exactly how to reword it yet. Please also feel free to fix or change anything else that doesn't look right. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about the newsletter. --Kumioko (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Racepacket, looks like you've been dealing with some funky stuff lately so I chose not to bug you last week. Hopefully everything has been resolved. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I have updated this article we have been working on. When you have a chance, can you please take a look at it? I'm eager to work toward closing it out. Thanks! --Cluskillz (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bothering you, but can you just explain me few things ther at GA review? Regards, --Wustenfuchs 17:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when you get a chance could you check in on this review. I believe I have addressed all your issues, and those raised by Stone as well. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you reverse the progress I made separating the Cornell alumni and faculty pages? The omnibus People list is too long and has no citations. Plus, I'm working in my userpace to create a sortable alumni list with citations that can go to FLC. Separating these lists is the practice of the majority on WP:UNI.

This represents a larger issue, however. Why did you simply revert all edits, which have been standing for months, without even reaching out to me, or anyone, to discuss first? The fact that they stood for so long is a type of consensus. —Eustress ^talk 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm troubled that even despite the month-long indefinite block earlier this year and several other blocks before and since then, you persist in destructive editing. I am asking the community to consider a site ban. The discussion is listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Site_ban_proposed_for_User:Racepacket. —Eustress ^talk 17:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

 

 

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

• 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
• 423 GA nominations passed.
• 72 GA nominations failed.
• 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just something to note, Dough4872 is not someone named Doug H. Rather, it's just "dough". (I'm pretty sure about this, go ahead and ask him.) — PCB 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't know. Racepacket (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see you passed the above despite citation needed tags and some dead links. Would appreciate your comments on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

If I may add, without sounding intrusive, that I would like to take on the personal responsibility of the mistakes found on the article. In addition, Racepacket very kindly took on the challenge of placing a hold on the GA review (filed back in January 31, 2011) while waiting for me to improve the article as needed. Where other editors could have easily backed off from the task that laid ahead, and likely demotivate an inexperienced editor like myself, Racepacket understood that despite the fact that I was on a "semi" WikiBreak due to very challenging school work, I was willing to put what I lack in experience with heart and guts to work on the article. I could go on and on, but Racepacket's track record of patience, encouragement, and hard work while conducting this lengthy GA review speaks for itself. Thank you. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  05:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to remove one of the two dead links:
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://me.calpoly.edu/about/history/ |title=A Brief History of Cal Poly Mechanical Engineering |publisher= [[California Polytechnic State University|Cal Poly San Luis Obispo]] |accessdate=2008-08-29}}{{dead link|date=April 2011}}</ref>
as the statement "The California Polytechnic School was founded as a vocational high school when California Governor Henry Gage signed the Polytechnic School Bill on March 8, 1901 after its drafting by school founder Myron Angel"
is supported on page 18 of Donald Pflueger's book California State Polytechnic University, Pomona: A Legacy and a Mission. It was my mistake not to remove the deadlink as I stated so on the GA review. The other dead link pertains to the well-known fact that Cal Poly Pomona undergraduate students are required to undergo a senior project or thesis as a requirement for graduation (I'm actually doing one myself). Despite coming across several references that mention this, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc; they tend to focus only on some particular department and even particular professors, and not to the university as a whole. Hence this statement should be removed until it could properly be verified.

You can say "Some departments (including engineeringfootnote to engineering and architecturefootnote to architecture requirement) continue to follow the originally mandatory requirement for an undergraduate senior/research thesis to graduate." Racepacket (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see the following: [5] --Rschen7754 05:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not hidden. It's still there in the history, and you still need to look at the history and edit summaries to get the whole story, anyway. While the time of when the GAN was closed could be debated, the more important point is that you edited a page involved in your RFC. You should not have touched it at all, for any reason. Thus, I reverted it to geometry guy's decision. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

(ec) With all due respect, I did not initiate an edit, I merely restored a deletion. Please refer me to the source of your statement, "You should not have touched [a page involved in your RFC] at all, for any reason." I don't see where the source to which you are referring. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:TPNO provides:

"Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

• Be precise in quoting others.
• When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
• Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section." Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Look at your RFC. I've stated that you should not be touching anything until the RFC is finished. Yes, you restored some things, but the history and diffs are still there, regardless. Just leave it alone for now. Take care of your RFC first. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your advice. However, I am also asking the basis or source to which you were referring. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you mean by source. If you mean "a page involved in your RFC", just look at your RFC. Your behaviour on Netball is involved. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I meant that it appeared that you were invoking some rule or policy regarding RFC/Us. Is there any source for your belief that editors cannot conduct reviews while an RFC/U is pending? I have voluntarily agreed to refrain from reviewing articles nominated by Dough, Rschen and Mitch while the RFC/U is pending, but that is based on conflict of interest principles. I am open minded and want to understand the basis for your position. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's more of a logical conclusion or common sense thing, rather than a rule. The RFC has evolved to the point where your overall behaviour towards reviews is under question. It's not just about specific articles now; it's about your behaviour. This is the period where you should be stepping back to reflect upon and improve it. It's just like a disputed article; you need to stop working, and sort it out. Behaviour is the same.

By continuing your reviews during the scrutiny, you're seriously damaging your credibility as a GA reviewer, since it looks like you're not paying attention to the discussion. Even if it's as minor as not respecting the closure of a GAN. Also, depending on the results, all the reviews you made during this RFC will have to be re-evaluated for better or worse. You're making your own mess. - Zero1328_Talk? 07:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that the opposite is true. I am being falsely accused of being prejudiced against articles covering very short highways and of somehow refusing to review them. What better way to demonstrate that the accusation is false that to pleasantly review articles about very short highways without fuss or complaint about their length? In effect, you are proposing to ask me to adopt the conduct that would confirm their false accusation. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not confirming it. It's not, not confirming it, either. It's about respecting the discussion. Think of an edit war or any dispute on an article. You don't continue editing it; both sides temporarily stop the work, and start talking, no matter who is actually right. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. I don't know. It's this "maybe" that should be making you stop and re-evaluate what you're doing, not the accusation. - Zero1328 _Talk? 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Zero1328, I question whether an "edit war" is the best analogy for what is happening here. I take the view that Wikipedia does not have "walled gardens" that that GA and FA are two of many things that all subject areas share in common, and can bring the community together for interplay between subject matter experts from different backgrounds. There are a few people who may be advocating a "walled garden" approach, asserting WP:OWNership over article that they did not even research or write. Suddenly, when these articles are brought nominated for GA, they say "How dare you! I have rules over what can be nominated for GA and what an article like History of Maryland Route 200 can contain." The problem is that the GA criteria are set by community-wide consensus, not USRD consensus. So, by advocating that we build a walled garden during the duration of the RFC/U, you are taking sides in that dispute. On the other hand, I can understand that we want to keep people productive and happy and seek to minimize wikidrama. That is why I voluntarily agreed not to review any articles nominated by the three editors during the RFC/U and offered to make that a permanent arrangement. Certainly, if you can broker a deal where everyone involved in either netball or USRD stops all work in those areas for a few weeks, I would be willing to join your détente. But I am not sure it would be attainable. Racepacket (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply