This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Cornell Statutory college names
After doing research on this subject, I realized that you had made a mistake on the names of the statutory colleges of Cornell. It seemed that you assumed all of them were "NYS School of ___" because of their ties with the state of NY. It turns out that if you go to each college's websites, you can find out that they all changed their names around the 1969-1971 period. Here are the websites.Human Ecology- "1969 The College is renamed the College of Human Ecology to better reflect its focus on human health and relationships." (Not NYS like you said--nowhere does it say "NYS College of __" on cornell's website; even if you google the name, it says The College of Human Ecology, at Cornell http://www.google.com/search?q=human+ecology+cornell&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) http://www.human.cornell.edu/che/About-Our-College/More_About_Us/history.cfm CALS - The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences evolved over the past century from the Department of Agriculture (1874), to the College of Agriculture (1888), to the New York State College of Agriculture (1904), to the present name (1971). http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/about/overview/index.cfm (It seems you misread this one, since the college has not had NYS since 1971). You can find the real names here http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm . Lastly, I would like to point out whats clearly stated on ILR's website (on the right hand corner): What's in a name?
“The ILR School started in 1946 with a focus on labor relations, and now focuses on a broad array of workplace issues, including a variety with global impact. Our mission is to 'advance the world of work.' Our official name remains the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, though we prefer to be identified as the ILR School.”— Dean Harry Katz http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/about/ (Once again, no NYS). I know that these are contract colleges and under NY law the state calls them "NYS," but these schools are a part of Cornell and they are under Cornell's wikipedia page; therefore, they should get their proper Cornell name, which is given to by Cornell, not by SUNY.
-- Mojojojo69 18:37, 15 april 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I did not notice this until today because it was left at the top instead of the bottom of the page. The "present name" is the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The 1971 change added the words "and Life Sciences" to the name; it did not delete the words "New York State". The website is misleading and I understand how you could be confused. Please read: http://www.cornell.edu/trustees/cornell_charter.pdf for the official and accurate names. Racepacket (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed your reference the the Bosnian "pyramid" from the Pyramid article, since there is no proof yet that there are any pyramids anywhere in Bosnia. Maybe someday someone will actually find pyramids there. Maybe it's just a promotional gimmick like the Ukrainian pyramids. Until it's verifiable what is actually there, editors have repeatedly agreed to keep it out of the Pyramid article. --Ronz 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Racepacket - Hi. I am new to this. Would you review an article I created called "Responsiveness Program."? TX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtw2 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You added (I think it was you) a 2004 population number about triple the 2000 population number (to the box in the article). Could you take a look? It doesn't seem likely. Jd2718 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Illinois places
Hi - good to see you creating a few small articleson places in Illinois - a couple of suggestions, though - firstly, could you add {{Illinois-geo-stub}} to them, so that they're listed in amongst the other Illinois geography stubs? Also, some of the coordinates you've added are a bit like overkill - for instance, you listed Blackberry Township, Illinois as being at 88.445828000000006° W. The difference between 88.4455828 and 88.4455829 is only about five inches - that added .000000000000006 of a degree is about 7/10,000,000 of a millimetre - about the same as the thickness of 15 hydrogen atoms. I don't think Wikipedia needs to be quite that accurate! Grutness...wha? 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:Templates
Please see this link Template Talk Page in reguards to Illinois Templates. Most of the information that is being presented on some of the Chicago area counties is unneeded info. The templates were getting WAY too big, and compared to other county templates around the US, the majority of those do not include that sort of information. You would find all that sort of info in the county write-up.--Kranar drogin 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I also noticed that you have started doing townships. Awesome! Glad to have another on board for that. What we will need you to do though is include an infobox with them. Here is what you would need to fill in. Any questions, let me know. I will make up the maps for you, so you won't need to include that. Here is an example of a township infobox in use Woodbine Township, Jo Daviess County, Illinois. Also, all your townships are going to need the county name in the article, so they are all going to have to be moved. There are over 1,000 townships in Illinois, so there are going to be many, many doubles.
That is great that you checked, but we are sticking to a system for the Illinois Project and that is to include the county in the title. Simply do a move, and make sure you update the links. They will have to be done sooner or later to be in line with all the other townships. Here is an example of Category:Townships in Ogle County, Illinois and the main page of Category:Townships in Illinois.--Kranar drogin 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very simple, when I refer to Marion Township that is what I type there. If I just put in there Marion Township, that takes the person to a page to choose from all the different Marions in the US. Or if I put in there Marion Township, Illinois, it links to two different townships in the state. So, in order to stop confusion, it was set up that the county is included in the name. Check out how other states do it, and you will find that is how they also do it. Pennsylvania and Ohio were what we started basing this whole template and township idea off of.--Kranar drogin 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Removing Points of Interest on Kane County Template
In accordance with the discussions regarding standardizing Illinois county templates, and against my wishes, I removed them. I actually believe it is worth having points of interest on there, but it seems as if the rest of the group is against including points of interest on the county templates. If you would like to join in the discussion, please do so here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois/Templates. Thanks. Abog 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much for starting the Road Runners Club of America article! Still too many red links for essential running articles (e.g., half a dozen on the new Track Town, USA article), but your contribution helps show headway is being made. If you are interested in a suggestion for an article to improve, the USA Track & Field article needs a lot of work (the Craig Masback redlink there is rather glaring), especially with the 2008 Summer Olympics track trials coming up. It's also about time to issue the first newsletter for the WikiProject Running, there are enough new members now... Ombudsman 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Help for read and verify an English Article
Hello, I look for someone reading and cancel mystakes on the English Wiki article Dominique Enon. Is it possible to verify it? Thanks
Regards.
S.T.
Virginia Newsletter - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Kubigula(talk) 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
True. I meant besides the trustees who served as students, but I didn't make that clear. Thanks for creating all the board chairmen pages. Some of them like Kiplinger were on my list of pages to add as well. Good work.
In answer to your question, try searching the Cornell Alumni News via this link [1]
Despite my best efforts, I've come to the conclusion that there were no official chairs during that time. I finally consulted good ol' Morris Bishop, and A History of Cornell states that the board acted without a chair for those years. They elected acting chairs at meetings, and I know that George Boldt served fairly often from at least 1909 to his death in 1916.
You've met 8 of them, eh? Very impressive. I think I can only claim meeting two and the son of a third. Have you been involved with the board yourself?
Cornell2010 02:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Cornell Statutory College Names
They may be what New York State Law refers to them as however they are not refered to that by Cornell University ergo, they should not be listed as such on the Cornell University page perhaps within the individuals schools pages however those are not the formally accepted names of the respective institutions--Bcc07 17:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Your arguement is compelling...point taken--Bcc07 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
New Article Improvment page for WP:VIRGINIA
Seeing as our old Collaborations page at WP:VIRGINIA had no activity in the past year it was decided to replace it with a new Article Improvement/Request Help page that would allow members to list articles in need of attention. Its also a place to request help for an article taht you are working on to see if any other members would like to volunteer and help out. Thanks. T Rex | talk 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Cornell Central Campus
Well, I've thought that a central campus article has been needed for some time and hopefully by putting out a stub people may start to contribute. The North and West campus articles appeared fantastically quickly when we started them last year(?).
I assume sections on the various quads, architecture styles, history, development, future etc... --Xtreambar 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Huzzah! An excellent start! I will hopefully have some time soon to do some clean up and improvement. Thank you for your effort. I concur that some scaling back may be necessary for the individual articles. Also consider pilaging Category:Cornell University buildings for pictures. --Xtreambar 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention my Risley paper. I was just re-reading it last night and editing it. Boy, that paper was a fun one to research and write. --Xtreambar 02:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Cornellstonehall.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Cornellstonehall.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Vicipaedia
What is Vicipaedia? You're here in DC? cOrneLlrOckEy 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Army10m.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Army10m.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article National Energy Marketers Association, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Joel Ward and Richard Matthews
Hi, I'm the guy who added Saturday's WSJ article as a reference to Forex scam and I noticed that you added the articles on JW and RM. I'm not sure that they are notable in and of themselves - since there are lots of scammers out there. Also, it might be viewed as a "single event" and people are rarely considered notable for single events. Actually the main reason that I didn't add at least one of these as an article is the potential for WP:BLP sensitivies to come up. Believe it or not, over Christmas/New Years I had a bit of a battle keeping references to Martha Stewart's conviction in her article.
No major point here - just saying hello. You might:
1. contact me if people want more detail, second opinion, etc. on these articles.
2. Add some of the material into the forex scam article.
3. Notify me on my talk page if you object to me changing the section heading to "Convicted scammers."
(Reposting this here because I'd rather you had the response up front)
Yeah sorry about that one, it ended up put there just some citation existed given it was the only response I had at that time (and was pretty much there to avoid a [citation needed] tag being added tile I could gather better information). It's being removed, and Square Enix's response is being swapped in atm.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you still happen to be here your post in the AFD made it seem you had reservations regarding other parts of the article. Could you mention any you think might be better off better addressed? I'm sorry if I'm being a bother, just I'm trying to aim for at least a featured article with this one, and the AFD that came up when things were just starting out has really thrown me for a loop. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mcdaniel-boyce_d.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That "Location=" thing has caused me more problems. Fortunately I fixed the problem and made the hidden field display on the pages so we can see such information. It looks fine to me now. Sorry for the hassle. MECU≈talk 13:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your query. I've also added several relevant stub templates, as the page could use more work and citations. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sylvester Willard, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.cayuganet.org/forthill/willard/syl.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Award
The Working Man's Barnstar
I, Darwinek, hereby award you this barnstar for your hard work during the 2008 Olympic Games. Your devoted work in updating Olympic articles was a major help to the project. Darwinek (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. HeirloomGardener (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Elizabeth McCaul
I have nominated Elizabeth McCaul, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth McCaul. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. HeirloomGardener (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Patrick Muldoon (politician)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Patrick Muldoon (politician), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
See WP:POLITICIAN. Merely being a candidate in an election does not confer notability.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Chris Neville-Smith sent the Muldoon article to Afd after you removed the PROD tag. I notice he didn't bother notifying you. Rklear (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WIN-T Page
Thank you for the information. I will work on making the changes you suggested. I would appreciate it if you could restore the page so I can do that.
Because Racepacket has a prior 1 week block for sockpupperty, and has clearly been editing while logged out to try and avoid scrutiny to his edits, blocked for 10 days.
Racepacket is further banned from making any edits to Dane Rauschenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for 3 months, under any user name or IP, to be enforced by a one month block and a reset of the 3 month ban timer should he violate the ban. He may make suggestions on the talk page.
Dane Rauschenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will be semi-protected for 3 months to prevent logged-out editing by any parties, including Racepacket and associates of Mr. Rauschenberg. Editors who wish to contribute to the article are invited to create an account, provided they respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Thatcher 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation on Marguerite Ross Barnett contribution
Your recent addition to Marguerite Ross Barnett has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Brian Reading (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The U
I have no idea why you are making a big deal out of a two year old discussion on reliable sourcing when a reliable source was found to show that the University of Miami is referred to as "The U" which you consistently have been removing from the article. Stop obsessing over this one fact and improve the page in other ways as you have been the only person to raise a stink about it on the talk page for at least six months and at most two and a half years.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
THE DISCUSSION AT Talk:University of Miami WAS TWO YEARS OLD WHEN YOU REVISITED IT. Official and reliable sources have since been found that allow for the inclusion of the five characters that make up the phrase "The U". Move on and let other people discuss things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you stop with the "a.k.a." section of the lead? It's referred to as all those names. They are not abbreviations, especially not "Miami of Florida".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am offering abbreviated as a compromise. I think it is best if we delete the whole thing because of WP:V and WP:NOT. Racepacket (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You removed all of the references for it. If you continue to edit this article disruptively I will seek disciplinary actions against you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed another formulation -- no text in the parenthetical and leave the characterizations to the footnote. Racepacket (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Fact tags
You seem to be tagging whatever sentence does not have a direct reference to it, which is not at all contentious, with a fact tag. Requesting a reference that the school colors of UM were chosen because they represent the orange tree and the mythological aspects of the ibis are getting disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not making a statement on Racepacket's actions as a whole as I haven't looked at the edit histories at all, but that one seems like a perfectly reasonable request. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
To let you know, I hold a baccalaureate from the University of Miami and I am an alumnus of the school. Not an "undergraduate student".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't really need my permission to update the statement on your user page saying that you are an undergraduate. Cheers. Racepacket (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I should update that, but I was tired of seeing you refer to me as an undergrad.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
References
Could you please stop using bare URLs in between reference tags? There are templates which enable standard formatting of references, which I have been extensively fixing after you add them to articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Both are acceptable under WP:MOS Racepacket (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
{{cite web}} is used overall on the article, or it is at least the norm. Either way, I am requesting that on University of Miami if you could use the templates instead of bare URLs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps another example of WP:OWN. Have you thought about using a mediator? Racepacket (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking you to fucking use a template instead of a bare URL. I have never seen anything in any MOS which says both are accepted. There is no need for a mediator when I am requesting that you use a particular formatting when editing this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, this suggests you should use the formatting that already exists on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing a mediator to resolve the problem with the lead sentence/"The U" issue. Sorry for any ambiguity. Racepacket (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been plenty of outside input on the issue with "The U" sentence on WP:ANI, Talk:University of Miami, and WT:UNI. Anything else is just abusing the system to attempt to get your way in the argument.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Please consider the benefits of mediation. It is a better structure that talking past year other. I think I understand your arguments, but I don't think you hear mine. Racepacket (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been improving the article outside of your extensive requests for an indepth discussion on how the name "The U" came about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Good. So have I, but it needs a lot more work. 07:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A good number of your recent edits have not improved but harmed the article, particularly with your constant false assumptions about Iron Arrow (it is an honor society, thus is involved with academics, and faculty members are not honorary members as far as the sources are concerned).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The U 2
I am going to say this as clearly as I can:
Your constant requests for an etymological and semantic description and indepth discussion of "The U" in the article on the University of Miami does not exist as far as I am aware. All that is known is that the institution is one of many that refers to itself (and is referred to by other entities) as "The U" and there are references in the article that show that. Just because these references do not explicitly say "The University of Miami, or The U" or some variation thereof, but imply its usage does not mean the references are not valid uses to support the statement. If you continue to beat the dead horse of this part of the article, actual disciplinary action may be taken.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there is a problem on my computer or my browser but I can't find the phrase "Miami of Florida" in what you have as Footnote #2, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=2390%7Ctitle=ESPN.com: Miami (FL) Hurricanes Football Clubhouse. I understand your position, until we get to the question of what can go into a footnote. Footnotes are supposed to help the reader, not confuse the reader. If the text says "water is commonly blue" the footnoted source can't say "I saw one lake at a distance, and it looked blue" when we know that upclose water is clear. Either the footnote must be changed or the text must be changed. I am not saying that there must be a lengthy discussion of "The U" phrase in the article. I am saying that if you want to capture the things that make Miami's use of "The U" different from the University of Minnesota's use of "The U" or its relation to the Athletic Dept's branding, that you are free to add sentences, probably in the Athletics section. By the way, I have contacted the Iron Arrow people and have confirmed that it is not a student honorary. Racepacket (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Warning
I see from WP:ANI that you're involved in an edit war on University of Miami. Please note that this is a blockable offense, and I'm asking that you stop. Not to mention the fact that you're removing information that has multiple sources, which leaves you little justification for constantly reverting. Additionally, a couple threads up on your talk page, Ryulong asked you to use the {{cite}} templates, and you asked for a mediator. A mediator shouldn't be necessary at all, and although I may not like the way that Ryulong handled the discussion about that, it's still not unreasonable for him to ask that you format your references like that. Killiondude (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Lead paragraph
Would you please stop changing the lead paragraph on University of Miami? I disagree with the changes you are implimenting. That is why I have reverted them. With your citing of WP:FOOT you are now just finding policies to feasibly support your changes. The explanation of the prose in the footnote is unnecessary. I do not like how University of Wyoming is set up. There is a precedent that you are attempting to set and it is getting really annoying.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to "set a precedent;" I am trying to fix an article within Wikiproject University. It was poorly sourced, contained excessive boosterism, poorly organized and repetitive. We have made progress, except that you keep reverting changes to the lead paragraph. What you revert back to is unsatisfactory WP:FOOT being only one reason why. Racepacket (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Why has "The U" been so controversial that it requires so much extensive sourcing? And why is this format which has been used on so many other articles inferior to the formatting on UW's article. You have been making changes without discussing them after they have been undone. I am trying to do this and prune the references there (I believe that "UM" and "Miami" do not need to be extensively sourced, but you have questioned "The U"'s inclusion).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the gesture. I would rather have "The U" unsourced and discussed in the text of the athletics section than what is in the current version. Again, please look at these problems, all of which are fixable:
"The U" can mean the whole school, the athletics logo, the hand-gesture, or the new film. (Yes, the title of the film will cause confusion.)
Away from Miami, "The U" can mean the U of Minnesota or the student radio station and website.
We can't find reliable sources for most of this.
The examples you found are hard for a stranger to parse without some hint or explaination
Solution: explain the situation to the reader, particularly in the Athletics section along with the school colors and other traditions. I suspect (although I could not guess from the original article) that "the U" is the whole football-centered school pride scene. (The "Bad Boys" plus 14,000) The promotional trailer for the film makes this point. The current formulation suggests that "the U" is for lazy people who want to text five characters instead of spelling out University of Miami. All of the above is too much to wrap up and bury in the words "commonly referred". We need something different that is clear to the reader. Racepacket (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
But...the use of "The U" is not just the athletics. And "commonly referred" or "locally known as" are equivalent, are they not? This would not require the extensive coverage in the footnotes, and I do not think that an analysis of the football bad boy mentality would do much good in the athletics section to utilize the references as they stand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to fork the discussion, so maybe the Talk:University of Miami would be better for this: I honestly see "commonly referred" and "locally known as" as having very different implications regarding geographic scope. To me, "commonly referred to" means most people in most places in at least America. "Locally known as" means probably most people in Miami. "people close to the school" means all alumni, their friends and family and people living near the school or otherwise connected to the school. Thanks for asking. Racepacket (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of asking the same thing. Stop changing the lead paragraph. The reformattings are getting bothersome and you keep doing the same one. I can tell your problem is not with "commonly" but rather with "The U", which is what you originally had removed from the article. It does not freaking matter that the name is not universally related to this one institution. I have provided enough to show that the name merits inclusion and is a common alias for it, regardless of people being alumni.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are you undoing my move of the thread to its own section at the bottom of the page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Re:University of Miami
I'm sorry, I'm not willing to do that. That's the basic purpose of reqests for mediation, I believe- perhaps look into that? J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Text removed from "Academics" heading
Did you attempt searching www.miami.edu for words such as "Fulbright", "Guggenheim", "NSF award", and "National Science Foundation"? I found a single usable reference for the Guggenheim Fellowship and I've listed references for Fulbright Scholars and NSF award recipients in an edit summary. More and more it seems you know nothing about the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I searched and found press releases dating from 2005 etc identifying specific professors as being Fulbright Scholars, but there was no indication that particular professors will still on the faculty. None of the references were a statement that "x Fulbright Scholars are on the faculty." I could not find anything supporting the %age of faculty with terminal degress (e.g., PhD, JD, MD etc.). I browsed the umiami website without a specific search to see if there were any comparable statements about the quality of the faculty that might not match those in the article, but I could not locate any. Racepacket (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Race, you must not have looked too carefully, because I did a similar precursory search and 4 results on the first page listed different faculty that had been awarded Fulbright awards. And I don't see how piece-mealing together many press releases would constitue OR as you were arguing on a separate discussion page....
Because the sentence is in the present tense. So I know that various faculty had such status in 2003 or 2005, but I don't know how many if any have it in 2009. It would take OR to figure that out. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am getting tired of this
First you disagree with me when I revert content you removed that you felt didn't belong on the article.
Now you are disagreeing with me when I remove content that I don't feel belongs on the article. And you are saying that I told you to stop removing long standing content without discussing it first. Show me where I told you that otherwise stop putting words in my mouth and stop reverting to make a point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jacksonville Developmental Center, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mantenostatehospital.com/jacksonville.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate that you made some efforts to paraphrase the text on Jacksonville Developmental Center so it would no longer be a copyright infringement. Unfortunately, adding synonyms and minor alterations in the sentences won't relieve the plagiarism issue. As it is currently written, the text will need to be deleted as a copyright violation. You are welcome to rewrite the text using original language. The page on WP:Close paraphrasing can provide you with some explanations and help. In the long run, it is always better to simply write the text from scratch using your own words. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards. Theleftorium 10:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that you removed the copyvio template. Unless that information is in the public domain (please let me know if it is), the copyvio still remains. Many sentences are copied directly from the source, so I'm going blank the article again. Regards, Theleftorium 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few examples of sentences that are copied from the source:
On March 1, 1847, the legislature established a nine-member board of trustees that was empowered to appoint a superintendent, purchase land within four miles of Jacksonville, and construct facilities for the Illinois State Asylum and Hospital for the Insane.
All patients were to be maintained at state expense. However, patients or their counties were expected to pay for clothing, travel, and incidental expenses.
At that time, the board of trustees was reduced to three members and the newly created Board of State Commissioners of Public Charities was given authority to investigate and report to the Governor on conditions at the hospital.
From 1944 to 1974 the hospital provided training in psychiatric nursing for students from general hospital nursing schools. Jacksonville's Psychiatric Nursing Affiliation Program, which was headed by the State Alienist, offered two-, three,- and four-month terms of classroom instruction and practical training at the hospital.
Please do not remove the template again until the section has been rewritten. Theleftorium 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're working on fixing this. Again, however, adding synonyms and minor alterations in the sentences won't relieve the plagiarism issue. See WP:Close paraphrasing for more information. I'll ask for a second opinion from someone more experienced with copyrights. Theleftorium 15:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some more examples of text copied from [2], [3], or [4]:
On March 1, 1847, the legislature established a nine-member board of trustees that was empowered to appoint a superintendent, purchase land within four miles of Jacksonville, and construct facilities for the Illinois State Asylum and Hospital for the Insane.
Construction of the buildings was begun in 1848 and James M. Higgins was hired as Superintendent. Although Dix had expressed interest that Jacksonville State Hospital be opened by 1849, it wasn't until November 3, 1851, that the first two wards were ready for occupancy and the first patient, Sophronia McElhiney, of McLean County, was admitted.
Although I think some parts are still too closely paraphrased, I have removed the copyvio template. In case I'm wrong, I have requested a second opinion from an experienced administrator at WP:Copyright problems. He/she will check the article in a few days. Thank you for being patient with me! :) Theleftorium 16:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. It was quite interesting to read about. Theleftorium 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not know what you want done with the article anymore. If you want me or anyone else to improve it, give us a clear and concise list of improvements you want done using a bulleted list of things to do. Because if you don't, I'm just going to ignore your suggestions because I've lost my patience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
an easy to read, easy to follow history section
a toned down reference to the fund raising that does not make unwarranted comparisons to other school, except on a national basis.
Stop reverting to what you consider a "consensus version". It is clearly not consensus if I disagree with it. I've been trying to change the section, but you just keep undoing everything. If it's the first of a set, then we can say it's the first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If it was not consensus, why did you remove the {{caution}} template that invited everyone to work out our differences on User:Racepacket/UMhistory? I am still willing to work with you on this, but I thought that we had reached consensus. Racepacket (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Because you are the only person who condisers it as needing this crap. We obviously did not meet consensus. I am trying to improve things without going to your subpages. And as a courtesy, as I told you if you were going to revert to your "consensus" version again, see WP:ANI#User:Racepacket at University of Miami, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Racepacket, you are edit warring, displaying worrying signs of WP:OWN and using misleading edit summaries. Please do not do this. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing "Momentum", "the first televised", "the most in Florida", and the reference for the last statement? All are supported by facts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Seriously. Stop removing the name "Momentum" and the fact that the campaign (regardless of anything you've been telling me) has been stated that it raised the most money amongst other universities in the state of Florida. It is getting annoying. Clearly there is no consensus for this removal, but every single time you remove these facts. You are removing reliably sourced information and not giving me a clear answer as to why.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"Restored structure"
The section break becomes necessary because it's impossible to navigate the page with your essays.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that if you want to insert a section break, you can do it in front of your next comment. People can then decide for themselves if they want to discuss at your new section or continue the old section. When we were discussing "The U" some people got confused by your section breaks and left comments under the old discussion, but other people missed those comments. Please remember that you don't own the discussion page. Racepacket (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You are the only one claiming to be "confused". Everyone else seems to be able to follow the narrative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, that section was not "arbitrarily divided". You began a new discussion years after the initial posting and months after someone else made a comment that was not really related. You merely chose it as a heading because you felt it was related at the time. My restructuring of the talk page is in no way against any regulations or guidelines for this site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what I mean when I observed that you are in too much of a hurry to get your facts correct. There was a comment on 27 March 2009. I posted a comment on 2 September 2009 in response to it, five months later. After several other comments, you physically moved my comment, but not the 27 March comment to a different point on the talk page and claimed that I was the first person "in years" to have any concerns about the issue. [5] These tactics make the history page (which automatically incorporates the section names in the edit summary) very difficult to use. Please stop this disruptive behavior. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The March 2009 post was unrelated to your September 2009 post. That post listed several sources where the "also known as" things were listed. Your post on September 2009 has nothing to do with what has been archived, filled up the middle of the page with an unrelated discussion, and is more or less resolved. Stop obsessing over what is connected where and the fact that I put a section break before that comment of yours. It is not editing your comment so I am not violating any policy. Also, stop using asterisks to reply to subjects. That produces bullet points which are only used to make lists. The colon does indentations, which is what should be done in conversations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, if we continue to edit war over this, we are most likely going to end up blocked. I have done nothing to your comment other than remove the bullet point and produce a new section with it at the beginning. There is nothing in any policy that forbids me from doing this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, you have to stop edit warring over the templates you have put on Miami Hurricanes football and Miami Hurricanes in the NFL, particularly using {{caution}} to say "Don't remove these, see the talk page". I do not know why you have gone on a crusade to make sure everything on any article regarding the University of Miami follows every single policy, requesting that everything be cleaned up and assuming that there is a POV slant to these articles. It is getting disruptive and annoying, particularly when you don't take into account anyone else's opinions or suggestions on the content and merely change everything yourself how you see fit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not editing your comments. That would mean changing the text that has nothing to do with formatting. As far as I am aware, changing formatting is not against policy. And you still have to stop edit warring and using the * for comment prefixes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I went out to the margin with one bullet at that point, because it represented a shift in the conversation after our dialog on the two talk pages. We are not edit warring over whether or not there is a bullet, you are making unauthorized changes to our indentations. Please leave it alone. There are more important things to work on than retroactively recasting the debate. We have made great improvements in the UM article. Just compare the Sept 1 version with the present version. Why not take pride in what you have done instead of editing the debate that led up to it? Racepacket (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Because you keep assuming you are right and everything is so much better since you came along. It's very grating.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop putting that "this was retroactively split" text in the archive page. It is not necessary and it was never on the talk page to begin with. Also, putting what you consider important in the {{caution}} templates are entirely unnecessary. Stop obsessing over this stuff and just work on the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:University of Miami/Archive 2. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add: lamest edit war ever. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have begun this request for comment on your actions on various articles related to the University of Miami.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I concurred with the request for comment on Racepacket's actions stating he has not appropriately responded to attempts to resolve disputes. Do go be man (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Racepacket, you are aware that you have to make a statement on the page, correct?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. This whole episode is well beyond where it should be. Bold editing has its place. Once the reverts start with ongoing discussions on the talk pages, however, the boldness needs moderation. I haven't taken the time to throughly analyze who did what when. Candidly, I don't have the time and the edits don't affect me that much. It appeared to me that you often too quickly edited and reverted controversial segments in direct opposition to other editors. I'm afraid that you sacrificed too much credibility dealing with aspects of the article that either have little impact on its legitimacy or step into hot button topics. Attribution of motives is not useful. I assume you believe you are trying to objectively improve the article according to your perspective of Wikipedia standards. You're right that boosterist statements are not appropriate. "Having won four National Football Championships under four different head coaches, UM is the undisputed center of college athletics" has no place. Appropriately expressed, winning four national football championships under four different head coaches does possibly represent something interesting about the school that differentiates it from others. The name and results of a fundraising campaign as compared to a region probably does not in and of itself represent useful information. Anyway, I apologize for the length of this message as I did not have time to write a short one. Do go be man (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There's quite a lot of messiness in the categorization of college football articles, as well as a lack of consistency in number of other ways among the articles on the topic, that I'm working on fixing. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As i stated, you don't live in Mayberry and neither do I. You don't have access to which webpages Baechter visited, but did not edit. You misread my comment about what lead me to start the AfD. What about using a mediator to help clean up the UM pages? Racepacket (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop talking about a damn mediator already. It is very suspect that Baechter, who happens to live in the same city as you and has not touched Wikipedia in over two and a half years shows up to vouch for you on a low traffic project page that was in no way advertised on any high traffic page (until recently, but this was before Baechter's edits). You've been blocked for sockpuppetry before and you've been blocked in the past six months for it. This is the same shit. Stop lying and admit that you know who runs the Baechter account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that a mediator will help us get to NPOV on these pages, because you do not accept my judgments and concerns about POV pushing. If you have a better way to get to NPOV, please suggest it. Are you interested in fixing the UM pages, or are you just trying to draw everyone into a big wikilawyering drama? Racepacket (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You're one to talk about wikilawyering drama. And again, stop changing the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And, just so you stop asking about a damn mediator: I am fine with the work you are doing to make any page compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. What I am not fine with has been fully described in the RFC/U page, but I will enumerate it here:
Edit warring to get your way
Edit warring against the consensus of the other editors of the pages (including "The U" and the name "Momentum" are most certainly a neutral point of view, yet you edit warred against it)
Referring to non-existant consensuses (referring to content that has been untouched on the article as "vetted" content)
Selectively choosing sources that were on the article and selectively choosing content from sources to put forward (the "most in all of Florida" comment was reliably sourced, but you continued to edit war that out of existance)
Using several hundred words to make your point (I do not want to read through your overly verbose comments, and neither does anyone else)
Utilizing Wikipedia processes and policies to hammer away at your opponents and ultimately get your way in an argument (the Iron Arrow AFD, constantly requesting a mediator, etc.)
It just happens that I came across all of these behaviors in your edits to pages in Category:University of Miami (Alansohn came across your behaviors at Dane Rauschenberg). You were maybe all right in contacting the nine editors you have worked with in the past in the Cornell WikiProject to say "Racepacket is an okay guy". However, you should not have asked the owner of the Baechter account to say anything. The "Oh, I don't live in Mayberry" defense is not going to work. If an account with ONLY TWO EDITS prior to making an edit like this suddenly shows up and praises your actions on a page that was not advertised anywhere other than the 13 users we contacted via Wikipedia, and this account has no contributions outside of fixing things on two history articles, and this account has been shown to edit in enough of a geographic proximity to your main account/IP address, I am going to assume that you have, yet again, offhandedly mentioned a web page to an acquaintance who just happened to have a Wikipedia account, which has again escalated into a three ring circus for which you are the ring master.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your concern. I don't know who you are, and I don't know who Baechter is, so I have no way of evaluating this. The advantage of a mediator is that he keeps things down to business and does not "escalate into a three ring circus." The mediator would go through each article, and you, Baechter, or anyone else could propose language and he would work with us to select a NPOV version that addresses the facts to be covered in the article. Racepacket (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
For the last damn time, the issue is not that we need a mediator. I began this discussion to clearly state my opinion that Baechter is one of your acquaintances in real life due to the fact that the account has barely any edits and came by JUST at the time that your neck was up on a proverbial chopping block and just so happens to live in the same city as you do. I DO NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH YOU MAKING ARTICLES COMPLY WITH WP:NPOV, so stop suggesting that we get a mediator to fix that particular (non-existant) issue. I do not know how to make myself any clearer other than making my next comment all in capital letters, bright red, and blinking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we are talking past each other because I believe the basis for our disagreement is that I see NPOV problems where you do not. I understand that you don't see the NPOV problem. Can you accept that other people, including the GA reviewers and the commenters on the RFC/U, see the problem? If a mediator can help us with that, why do you oppose using one? We don't need Wikipedia articles that argue "University X is the greatest in the world and is the center of the universe" even if a majority of the active editors on that page believe it. Racepacket (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO FIX POV ISSUES. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW YOU HAVE BEEN EDITING THE PAGE, CAUSING EDIT WARS AND REFERRING TO CONSENSUSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. I DON'T CARE IF YOU REMOVE OVERLY PROMOTIONAL TEXT. I HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN YOU REMOVE NEUTRALLY STATED, RELIABLY SOURCED STATEMENTS. STOP SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED A MEDIATOR FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ONE OF MY PROBLEMS CONCERNING YOUR EDITING PRACTICES.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong, just curious, how did you think writing in all caps, big font, red was going to support your position? I'm not an expert on such things, but I think your last post makes an excellent case for a mediator or a time out. Do go be man (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to support any position. I am merely trying to clearly state to Racepacket that his reasons for wanting a mediator are not a problem I have with his editing. My use of font formatting is to make sure my point is clearly stated. If it is not, then I will say it again: I do not think we need a mediator for something I pretty much agree with Racepacket is a good idea. The RFC audience is enough of a third party at this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad you were not trying to support your position. Just a tip, all caps does nothing to clarify any sort of writing. At best, it is useful for limited emphasis on a word or two. Take a look at standard user agreements and you may notice the lawyers use all caps to obscure the parts to which they don't want you to pay much attention. It appeared to me that you were shouting a lot of meaningless noise, so I didn't read it. Wouldn't be surprised if I were alone in that. --Do go be man (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to talk condescendingly to me, I suggest that you stop inserting yourself into this dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to sound condescending. That, however, hasn't appeared to be an issue for you. I'm serious in my advice to avoid ineffective communication techniques such as all caps. I know that you can communicate more effectively. Do go be man (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Skorton
Thanks for putting some work in on David Skorton—after the university unilaterally 100% whitewashed it a few months ago, I tried to restore the original article while addressing its BLP issues, but I was painfully aware that I was adding fluff and pushing the tone too far towards subjective promotion in the process. I haven't had the heart to go back to it since. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thread moved here, where it would seem to be more relevant—hope you don't mind.—Notyourbroom (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
List of Cornell Manhattan Project people
This article has been reccommended for speedy deletion. The reason is elucidated in the revision history of the last edit. If you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, there are instructions on the tag. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response at my talk page, it is much appreciated. And I think the introduction that you wrote really provides clarity for the article. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI
I think the ANI for Dharris1844 was premature. If you WP:AGF then the editor is a new user and, hopefullym, just a misguided supporter. The cryptic ANI message, along with the word "misconduct"is essentially biting the newbie. A far more appropriate response would have been to address perceived misconduct on the talk page. (And it's not a vote, so how can she vote twice?) - BalthCat (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your view. I think that the repeated COI template warnings and gentle escallation of observations about conflict of interest were ignored. I guess we disagree about whether the messages left in bold on the AfD page are considered "votes." When another user struck out her second vote, she got personal, and kept removing the strike out[6][7] and the SPA template. I assumed good faith until the evidence went the other way. As stated in the WP:AfD page,
Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after *, as in "* Delete Speedy keep".
We should judge the merit of an article based on its current state, not its old versions. Her strong POV has been removed from the article; the real issue here is surely Andy Scott Harris' notability, or lack of it. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Racepacket: I welcome your voice of reason. It has been almost non-existent in this discussion.
It's fine if Wikipedia doesn't satisfy my perspective entirely. However, if some good part of it is not presented, then all that is presented by the NCC is propaganda. If the nasty stuff isn't discussed, at least somewhat, then the public will be fed pablum. I'm sure a neutral point of view does not in any way mean sweeping embarrassing facts under the rug, or pulling the wool over the public's eye.
I realize that the full weight of my argument would be better suited to a web site. But Wikipedia has a moral obligation to present some of what I have pointed to. No one else has. And it is clearly in the public interest to do so, and in the interest of balanced knowledge of the issue.
Just deleting the Politics of Gatineau Park would be a form of censorship.--Stoneacres (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for helping to expand the article. It has been a source of headaches in the past. Since you have the book, do you think you can expand it some more? I thought I had it myself, but apparently I don't. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just one further thought. If you do have a chance to add more from the "sold short" book, I'd suggest that you treat claims about third parties with caution. He makes inflammatory claims about certain companies, and that can be problematic. I was thinking more of noncontroversial biographical material. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
References
If you are going to use the "name" parameter for <ref>, could you please put quotation marks around whatever you are going to have as name=?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
GA
Would you stop listing University of Miami for GA every time you think you've improved it enough?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I invited you and others to help make the improvements listed. I waited and have spent the last few days taking care of the remaining items. What specifically do you feel has not been addressed? Racepacket (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am asking you to stop repeatedly requesting good article reviews.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying - are you saying that you don't think we have improved the article to the point that it qualifies as a Good Article, or that you had hoped to make more improvements to it before the nomination? It will take at least a week before the reviewer considers the article, so we can still make some improvements. You have really spent most of your efforts on other articles lately, leaving me to address the GA2 critique, so having addressed those points, I renominated it. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You constantly put it up for GA review and it constantly gets shot down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you have answered my questions and am looking forward to reading your civil reply. The 2007 nomination was rejected for obvious reasons. The Sept. 2009 nomination was rejected because of the edit war over the fundraising campaign after we had both agreed to submit the nomination. So after that was resolved, it was renominated. The Oct. 2009 nomination was rejected for a stated series of deficiencies. GA2 also noted, "incivility on the talk page continues." So, I guess it is better that you have moved that to this user talk page. I can't solve the incivility problem, but I did my best to address the other deficiencies. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not care about the results. I think that you focusing on forcing this article to GA status is not necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I caught this in the recent changes. Your AfD nomination for the article was incomplete so I've completed it for you. You may wish to go back to WP:Articles for deletion/Don West, Jr. (3rd nomination) and add in your rationale for deletion- feel free to remove my explanation for completing the nom. HJMitchellYou rang? 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Racepacket
Please help me in protecting Global University Ranking article from deletion. You specified the issue with copyright but 1) it’s the Russian legislation which completely different from other countries; 2) all other rankings have the same copyright and everyone refers to them without raising this issue.
I will check the list of 100 universities and make sure that University of Illinois is ranked properly. The article has been heavily vandalised recently and this could’ve damaged the position. 87.194.126.221 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Tags
When you place an editorial tag on an article, it needs to be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page that explains your justification for it. That allows editors to address your points, or decide that they are not legitimate ones. I think I remember making this revision several times on various University of Miami-related articles you've edited. Thanks! MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
Hi, someone voted on meta:Global_sysops/Vote as an anonymous user, using your username. As a result, this vote was rejected. Please log into meta first, and then restore your vote. Cheers, John Vandenberg(chat) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I was logged in, clicked on the link at the top of the page, voted, and only my IP adress was reflected. Racepacket (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You were logged into en.wikipedia.org, but you were not logged into meta.wikipedia.org - it is a separate wiki. You need to go here, create an account, and then replace the IP with your username while logged into meta. You have half a month to do this, so there is plenty of time. ping me again if you have problems. John Vandenberg(chat) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Huh?
Did you go to Morehouse??
Have you made similar deletions to other notable alumni lists? Have you altered or edited Earlham's page? the list of notable Wabash alumni? Elon??? Brown?
I am not sure what criteria you used to add people to the list, but I try to apply consistent criteria. Certainly, if someone is notable and has a wikipedia article, they should be listed. I do not understand what the 25% represents, because I did not delete 25% of the entries. I do not have any conflict of interest regarding this matter, and I assume that you are acting with good faith as well. There is a difference between a category which collects articles about the alumni of a college and the List of x college alumni. Racepacket (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –MuZemike 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The UM Business School is not its own separate school such that it requires its own article split off from information randomly taken from the main University of Miami page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, would you stop submitting University of Miami to GA review? It's not going to happen. Not every page needs to be GA and not every page needs to be FA. Your undying focus on trying to get the page to GA status is not helping, especially when you unilaterally shunt information off to another article just because a random GA reviewer said so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing that you put on University of Miami School of Business Administration that should not have been removed from University of Miami. If you stopped focusing on putting University of Miami up for Good Article Review, maybe you would be able to do more. The fact that you cannot accept anyone else's opinion is just bringing up all of the problems that you caused in the first slew of AFDs and GA Reviews.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you not pay attention to this page or something?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I am still working on growing the Business School article. Please give it some time. See Wikipedia:Summary style, The article already contains which degrees the school awards and the relevant rankings. We can add more about its facilities, programs etc. Racepacket (talk)
Now that I see your response, I would note that 1) I didn't participate in the first GA nomination, although I tried to redress some of the concerns noted there. 2) The reviewer is correct that there is an over-emphasis on magazine rankings in the main article, and many of the rankings relate to just the business school, so it makes sense to move them to the business school article, just as we moved the medical and law rankings to those schools. 3) I am open to everyone's opinions including the four independent objective observers who did the GA reviews. Perhaps you should try to listen to them as well. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing about the Business School that can be said in a separate article about it that is not already covered in the main UM article. If you are going to attempt to write an article on the UM Business School, I would suggest doing so in your user subspace first because making something that is just a cut and paste from another article without adding any substantial content is not going to serve any purpose. Just because the GA Reviewer suggested it does not mean it will work in practice. At least when it comes to the Law School, the Med School, and RSMAS, they are all separate entities. The Business School is just another division of the University that has undergraduate and graduate students. I'm not sure why the Music School has an article, though. Also do not accuse me of interfering with the GA Process when I have made multiple attempts to address my concerns with you throughout the day that the review has been taking place. Reverting me is just going to make it appear the article is not stable. If there are too many magazine rankings and most of them the Business School, then we eliminate them instead of making an entirely new article with less than perfect content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I have made a thread on the talk page at Talk:University of Miami#Various explanations to explain why I removed references and a much smaller explanation as to why I remerged the Business School content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The Business School, the Law School and RSMAS are co-equal educational units in the University. Each is headed by a Dean who reports to the President. This is very similar to the Wharton School, the Johnson School, the Kellogg School, and all of the other business schools that have been split from their main university articles. What is the downside of a split? It gives Wikipedia a chance to expand its coverage of the Business School without cluttering up the main article. For example, I added the sentence that listed which degrees were offered at the school that you have now deleted. Give it time. Racepacket (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So do the College of Arts & Sciences, the School of Engineering, the Nursing School, the School of Communication, etc. Just because a chunk of University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) unduly focuses on the Business School does not mean it should be given its own article. And really, the sentence about it giving an MBA and PhD really doesn't do much to the retention of the page should someone send it to AFD. If you are going to make an article like this, I think working on it in a personal sandbox first would be more effective than cutting and pasting from its parent article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The AfD process involves a group decision. Even {{PROD}} allows for interaction and administrator intervention. Unilaterally deleting an article twice is very high handed. Racepacket (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You removed all of its contents at 23:44 EST, (4:44) 1 February 2010 and 17:44 EST, (0:44) 1 February 2010. Your comments were not made until after I restored it. 1) You incorrectly stated that the school was just an undergraduate program. 2) You overlooked my sentence stating what degrees it awarded. 3) It was an inappropriate unilateral action rather than a group action. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. It was an article with no substantial content. All you did was take the magazine ranking section from the main UM article that focused only on the Business School and add a lead paragraph that says the school awards MBAs and PhDs. Stop arguing with me over the fact that I undid what little work you put into the page. There was nothing there that could not be stated in the main UM article, especially now that I've removed the specialized magazine ranking sections.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a "oh I'll throw this together in an hour" thing. Work on it over the course of a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop making a freaking article on the Business School. There is no coverage on it anywhere other than in magazine rankings comparing it against other business schools.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sending it to AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Also can you stop removing this carriage return? It separates the infobox from the prose of the lead paragraph and does not affect the formatting of the page otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
All three references do support the sentence and describe the salt springs. Racepacket (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, please stop removing this carriage return. You do it every time you undo all of my edits. Also, information on Little Salt Spring really only pertains to RSMAS or the article on the spring itself, regardless of the fact that a group within UM owns it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There has always been a separate article on the Little Salt Spring, but that does not stop us from including it in either the Research discussion of the UM article or the RSMAS article. Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The 2.5k worth of text that you have put on the main UM article dedicated to LSS is ridiculous. A sentence regarding LSS, without the three references that comprise most of that text, could be worth it, but not all of this. I don't care if the reference support the fact they perform research at LSS. Those are references I used when I was writing my thesis on research I performed on some of the materials from LSS. They really have no place in the article on UM if they are just being used to say "research has been done at Little Salt Spring". And certainly, a description of the spring is really unnecessary when it comes to the article as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
A typical reader would not understand why a sink hole was worth studying. So we need to explain how the unique condition of the sink hole makes it significant. A single sentence is like saying "The Grand Canyon is a big hole in the ground of interest to geologists." The third reference may be a bit obsure, but the first two are very accessible to the general readership, and I found all three without resorting to the Science Citation Index or other specialized reference works. Science Magazine is read by thousands of readers outside any particular field. Please join in the effort to properly reference the article and make it comply with WP:V. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I've modified what you added to make sense, incorporate it better into the prose of the section. I've also used the one Miami.edu reference rather than the two scientific papers. There does not need to be that much text dedicated just to references for a one-off mention of the place that resulted in my cum laude status at graduation last year.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Jerry Stipp's article in Science seems to be more widely cited than the one that you picked. Perhaps we should use that one? Also, please explain why the 1980 Sarasota Herald Tribune article reports that Little Salt Spring was recently deeded to UM [in 1980] and that the Dept. of Geology's Geoarcheological Research Center was taking the lead in studying it. Yet, the Miami Hurricane later reports that UM got the LSS in 1982. Is 1982 the year LSS was transferred from Geology to RSMAS? Racepacket (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know. Also, there does not to need to be three separate scientific papers that show that research is performed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The above statement is factually incorrect. Racepacket (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing factually incorrect about what I said. Just stop removing the quotation marks and the carriage return as you did here. While WP:REFNAME says that they need not be used unless the item contains a space, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters, it still does not hurt to use them. It does not make the page any better or worse, but it is just something I requested that you do. And the same thing goes for the carriage return that separates the text of the infobox from the prose of the lead section. I cannot find anything that says it should or should not be there in WP:LEAD or WP:IBX but it is just something else that I am requesting that you retain in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Double check your facts. I did clean up beyond the quotes and you are changing the = in templates to +, which causes information to not be displayed properly. Also, some were with quote marks and others were without, and we are working under time pressure to get the article into compliance with WP:V. I want to stop having to check to see if you have gone back and edited a particular ref name to add quote marks behind my back, so I am working off a copy of the article that does not have the unneeded quote marks. Since you have not made a substantive contribution to the article for months, and apparently have no plans to do so, I suggest you let the editors who are working to bring the article up to standards get on with their work. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
All of them should have quotation marks. Just add them to whatever version you are working from. I am doing nothing to affect the editing of the page. I am just fixing formatting that you keep removing. There is no deadline on this. Maybe if you just updated the content in whatever copy you have saved we wouldn't have an issue with the quotation marks and that extra carriage return. I also have no idea what you mean by "changing the = in templates to +".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If you don't know that you are changing the = in cite templates to +, then you should not be editing the footnotes. We are under a time-pressure deadline on this article because, as you know, the GA review will not be placed on "hold" for long. Racepacket (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not even know what you mean by "changing the = in cite templates to +". I have made no such edits. And the only thing I am doing is formatting the name aspect of the <ref> tag by adding " around the item being designated as a name. I have not made any changes from "the = in cite templates to +". None of the edits I have even made to the page incorporate the + sign. If you could point out a diff where I have changed "the = in cite templates to +" then I might know what's going on. Whatever I am doing concerning formatting should not be preventing the article from being promoted to GA, a task you have brought onto yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness you can't go back and tamper with the edit history. Your = -> + change is there in red ink. Racepacket (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That is one instance where the = was changed to a + because I was undoing the edit where you fixed that because all I saw was the fact you removed every single quotation mark in a ref tag. Maybe if you didn't remove every single quotation mark that would not have happened. It is certainly not something to accuse me of doing something on purpose and picking out one thing that was very clearly a mistake that no one should be blamed for.
The issue is that I am asking you to not remove the quotation marks and that line break between the infobox and the lead paragraph.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm giving up my hour of sleep to get the article to conform to WP:V and I find myself constantly interrupted by you and this concern. You admit that nothing requires the quotes. I am in the habit of not using them. You are not adding substance to the article, and the harm is that you are wasting everyone's time. Please drop this and let us get on with our work. Racepacket (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I am just asking you to add two more key strokes when you add references. The fact of the matter is that you should not change the formatting of an article wholesale just because you prefer to not use that formatting style. The quotation marks were there long before you touched the article, and if you are going to contribute to it you keep it there, just like when we deal with the differences between American and British English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? Is nothing I am saying here doing anything? I'm adding back the quotation marks. And if you are going to be sane you are going to add them to whatever off-site copy you have of this article. So you can get on with bringing the page up to whatever holy standards you have made for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you use the * to preface any reply you make? The standard method of indenting is the :. Not the *. It's really jarring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Putting it bluntly
Get it through your thick head that I am not actively attempting to make it so University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fails becoming a good article. Why would an alumnus not want an article on their alma mater to be one of the best articles on Wikipedia?
I have only been removing content that I do not think makes the article good. There is no need to have three separate references to say research is being done somewhere.
There is no need to say a particular teaching dummy was developed and use Answers.com as your refernce.
I did not mean to change the = to a + in this edit. The only thing I meant to do was undo all of your changes to remove the quotation marks, which just so happened to include the fix you made for a + to an =. Maybe if you didn't keep things on your offsite copy there wouldn't be an issue with this.
I would love to help get the article to featured status but the thing is that we cannot seem to work with each other on this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop accusing me of trying to sabotage the GA promotion and for intentionally changing "work=" to "work+" in that one edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh Jesus, stop bringing up the fucking +/= thing that was unintentional and saying that I am harassing you. Did you even read this? Stop using the off-site copy to write the page. Stop overwriting everything when you make a single edit. I did not mean to do the +/= thing. I did not even know it was there until you wouldn't shut up about it. Get the GA review through. Stop sending it to GA after this if it fails.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University of Miami. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — DædαlusContribs 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Racepacket. I took a look at WP:AN3#User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: ). It seemed to me you have already broken 3RR, but I doubt that any admin really wants to issue a block. From a distance it appears to be a silly dispute, that the participants could work out if they would just talk to each other. If you are willing to make any kind of conciliatory statement in the 3RR report, it will most likely be closed with no action. It is unclear why a GA nomination would cause an urgent rush to make fixes to the article. Please consider offering to stop the war, or promising to submit the dispute to a resolution on the article Talk page. That ought to be enough. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks as though Ryulong does not persist in his preference for the double quotes. This should make it possible for you to edit the current version of the article rather than digging up a back version saved on your computer. Couldn't this work? If you wish to respond, please do so at User talk:EdJohnston#3RR/Racepacket. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Rewrite: Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research/Temp
I'm trying to review Talk:Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research/Temp but can't complete it at the moment because wayback is currently down, so I can't review the source for the list of Discoveries. The only issue I see from the original source is that you have not provided citations for all of your quotations. Every quotation requires a citation in immediate proximity. While a small enough run of text not to be a problem here, I would also like to point out the following as the kind of close paraphrasing that can cause problems:
Thompson specified conservation as another Institute goal: "Men were too prone in America to destroy vegetation, especially forests and grazing surfaces", he said. "They must learn now to conserve."
Conservation would be another goal: “Men were too prone in America to destroy vegetation, especially forests and grazing surfaces,” he said. “They must learn now to conserve.”
Please remember with these rewrites that the words are not alone in copyright protection; US copyright law also protects structure. When rewriting, you should keep that in mind and be careful not to follow too closely on the arrangement of your source, unless it is completely devoid of creativity, such as a chronological listing of events.
Since I can't complete the review of this one just now, I'll move on to some of the others. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Rewrite: Cornell Central Campus/Temp
This rewrite is unusable, I'm afraid, as it also duplicates previously published content. For example, the rewrite includes the following:
While the earliest buildings were designed by outside architects, by 1871 Cornell had established one of the United States' early architecture schools and many of the later buildings were designed by the architechture school's professors and students. Charles Babcock was the first of these professors.
While the earliest buildings were designed by outside architects, by 1871 Cornell had established one of the early architecture schools and many of the later buildings were designed by its professors and students. Charles Babcock was the first of these professors.
This duplication continued all the way down to "this case Carrere and Hastings." and then picked up with close paraphrasing.
I have deleted the proposed rewrite. We can't use this text without verification from the City of Ithaca that they are licensing their web content compatibly. You are welcome to write another, but please be sure that all content is written in original language. As the template advises, you can't even use content by other contributors without providing attribution. Also, while in this case the content you carried over was from the identified source, note that content you have added from other sources will also need to be carefully checked against them. Given your confirmed history of copyright issues, we cannot presume that this content has been handled in accordance with WP:C and WP:NFC.
As I mentioned at my talk page, you do have time. These articles are listed for a week before closure, and you can request an additional week if that time is not sufficient. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This rewrite makes me wonder if you are aware that under Wikipedia's copyright policy you cannot use previously published content without clearly marking it in accordance with WP:NFC. The only exception is if the material is public domain or compatibly licensed. While some content is so devoid of originality that it does not merit copyright protection, the US laws that govern Wikipedia have deliberately set the threshold for originality very low. Accordingly, text like this would easily pass: "Ross envisioned the group would encourage running, meet regularly, raise funds, coordinate schedules, recruit sponsors, and promote competition in long-distance races such as the one-hour track run."[8] You have reproduced that sentence verbatim in your proposed rewrite. It is sourced, but there are no quotation marks to indicate that the text is non-free.
While such reuse would certainly be de minimis, not rising to the level of substantial similarity in a court of law, Wikipedia's policies are deliberately tighter in construction. They require that all non-free text imported into Wikipedia be marked.
Close paraphrasing also continues to exist. Your rewrite seems a bit rushed; in fact, you didn't even change all of the verb tenses in rewriting. Consider the following from your proposal:
At a February 22, 1958, Ross met with nine others at the Paramount Hotel in New York City to discuss the general direction for the organization and developed its basic operating structure. Ross was named acting provisional president. The first RRCA National Championship races were awarded....
Meeting at the Paramount Hotel in New York City, Ross and nine others discussed the general direction for the organization and developed the basic operating structure. Ross was named acting provisional president. The first RRCA National Championship races were awarded...
Also compare this from the proposed replacement:
In 1974, the RRCA applied for and received IRS group exemption status. This confers 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status on RRCA's member organizations that desired and qualified for the designation. That same year, the first group of RRCA State Representatives were recruited to assist RRCA members and recruit potential members. This evolved into the formal development of the RRCA State Representative Program which provides similar services today.
In 1974, the RRCA applied for and received IRS group exemption status. This allowed the RRCA the ability to grant 501(c)3 status to affiliate members that desired and qualified for the designation. That same year, a cadre of RRCA State Representatives were engaged to assist RRCA members and recruit potential members. This evolved into the formal development of the RRCA State Reps Program which provides similar services today.
Much of the language and structure of the original are retained. I'm afraid that this rewrite is also not usable.
The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you're working on this again, but I see that you have also once again pasted content onto the project. You must not do this, in any space. Compare the following, from your "temporary":
In 1978, RRCA President Jeff Darman helped lobby Congress for the passage of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. ...This ended the virtual monopoly that the AAU had on Olympic sports governing in this country. The result of the breakup of the AAU was the formation of “The Athletics Congress/USA” (TAC/USA)
In 1978, RRCA President, Jeff Darman helped lobby Congress for the passage of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. ...This ended the virtual monopoly that the AAU had on Olympic sports governing in this country. The result of the breakup of the AAU was the formation of “The Athletics Congress/USA” (TAC/USA)
Other content also follows too closely.
Please rewrite content elsewhere before posting it on Wikipedia. As it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to have to say the article is not eligible for GA at this time due to the stability issues noted on the review page. I respect and acknowledge the amount of work that went into improving the article for this review, and do think it is much improved from where it started out. When the article stabilizes again and the copyvio issues are resolved, I hope you will not be too discouraged to try again. Should you choose to do that, I will re-do the review if you want me to. Best of luck. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
UM Housing
I frankly do not understand why you have tagged the student housing section as having a non-neutral POV. You claim that it gives undue weight to undergraduate housing. It is merely a section that describes the five residential colleges and on-campus apartments. Perhaps if you gave me more of an inkling as to why you believe that it is a non-neutral paragraph, it could be rewritten to be even more neutral. Right now, all I think is that you don't believe I can write about the University of Miami in a neutral tone or you just don't think that any two-sentence descriptions of the residential colleges is necessary for the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
UM sold off its married student housing, and I can't find anything about graduate or medical student housing. I think that the amount of material and level of detail in describing the undergraduate housing is excessive. There are 31 fraternities and sororities. There is no need to single out the six that own their own houses for naming. We have this covered in the section called "Student life." Racepacket (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you have brought up the "married student housing" or the "graduate student housing" here. There are currently two sentences about each set of housing areas (the Hecht & Stanford Towers, the Mahoney-Pearson & Eaton Suites, the Apartment Area, and the University Village). That's not excessive. It also does not focus on the positives or negatives. Just the inherent facts. And the six that do have housing are explicitly mentioned in the reference being used. Why should they not be mentioned?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Because there are 31, why name just six? Most college and university articles do not list the fraternities and sororities. If each fraternity has 150 members (an optimistic estimate) they are much less than 1% of the total student body of 15,629. There are colleges which do have on campus fraternities, and some colleges have more than 50 fraternities (each with its own house) on campus. However, they don't list them all. If you insist, we could add a sentence in the housing section explaining that a total of x undergraduate men live in fraternity houses. Otherwise I think it is undue emphasis on just six fraternities simply because they provide housing while the other 25 do not. Racepacket (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
They are listed because they are the only fraternities or sororities on campus that have houses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
John Crerar Library
Hi. I'm a tad concerned, I'm afraid, that you seem to be re-adding copyrighted material to some articles after it was removed. While I have concerns about both Sprint football and Cooperative extension service, my major worry right now is with your edit to the John Crerar Library article. The problem is that most of that material is identical to the Encyclopedia of Chicago's article. Even a quick comparison shows teh problem: the first paragraph you added reads:
John Crerar was a Chicagoan who gained his wealth by founding a railroad supply firm. His will gave the city a portion of his estate (estimated at approximately $2.6 million) as an endowment for a free public library, selected “to create and sustain a healthy moral and Christian sentiment.” To comply with Crerar's wishes without duplicating existing area libraries, the directors decided to limit the collections to the sciences. The library expanded to include medicine in 1906.
However, the Encyclopedia of Chicago has:
John Crerar came to Chicago from his native New York City in 1862 to establish a railroad supply firm. His will gave the city a portion of his estate (estimated at approximately $2.6 million) as an endowment for a free public library, selected “to create and sustain a healthy moral and Christian sentiment.” To comply with Crerar's wishes and to complement area libraries, the directors decided to limit the collections to the sciences, adding medicine to the library's scope in 1906.
The problem is that changing a word here or there isn't enough - your additions still suffer from being overly close paraphrasing at best. Rather than relying so heavily on the wording from the sources, the sources should simply inform the content. - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Restoring copyright violations
(edit conflict) I have blanked John Crerar Library. Given that you have again restored non-free content to the article, it seems that you may not understand Wikipedia'siecopyright policies.
You may not place non-free content on Wikipedia unless you are clearly marking brief excerpts with quotation marks or block quotes in accordance with WP:NFC. You may not closely paraphrase non-free content on Wikipedia, either, but must rewrite material completely in your own language, in accordance with WP:C.
In addition to the above examples, consider the following, which you restored:
Throughout its history, the library's technology resources attracted a large clientele from Chicago-area business and industry.
The Crerar's technology resources attracted a large clientele from Chicago-area business and industry.
You have added a few words to the lead, but otherwise this text is pasted from the original. You also added:
To assist the post–World War II expansion in scientific research, the John Crerar Library became one of the first to offer a fee-based research service for industry and government. Since 1951, the collection has focused on current science, technology, and medicine.
The source says:
To assist the post–World War II expansion in scientific research, the directors established an innovative fee-based research service for industry and government. In 1951 they decided to limit the collection to current science, technology, and medicine.
This is an unusably close paraphrase; it is almost identical in structure and uses some of the same creative text: "To assist the post–World War II expansion in scientific research"; "fee-based research service for industry and government".
Any text that you place on Wikipedia, except brief quotations as set out above, must be completely rewritten. You cannot duplicate or closely follow previously published sources. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, phrases like "fee-based research service for industry and government" describes the service. It is very difficult to describe it any other way without distorting the scope of the innovation. In the case of the start of the "History" section, last week's version started, "The library opened April 1, 1897 and is named for John Crerar who gained his wealth by founding a railroad supply firm." I then rewrote it by moving the opening date to a different paragraph without reading any of the sources to avoid them influencing the article. It then became closer to the Encyclopedia of Chicago. I then added the New York Times article and expanded the quote from his will and the will contest. I understand that if any article is more detailed and more extensive than any one of its sources, it is difficult to claim copyright infringement. Also, if an article combines materials from a wide variety of sources, it is difficult to make that claim as well.
In the case of the founding of the RRCA, I was paraphrasing from a 1957 editorial in the Long Distance Log which was poorly written. The other author also paraphrased the same editorial and it is not surprizing that the two would be close because we both had the same source.
I have not yet turned to the Boyce McDaniel article, but will take a look at it. It is difficult to keep up with you and I have other things that I must do this weekend. Racepacket (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have been told that adding content around copyright concerns makes prosecution of copyright infringement difficult, then you have been misinformed. What you then have is a derivative work, which 17 U.S.C.§ 101 describes as follows:
“derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Note especially the inclusion of "elaborations" in this definition. Adding more content does not eliminate copyright concerns. A derivative work is prosecutable under US law to the extent that it can be demonstrated to contain substantial material from a copyrighted source.
It may be difficult to find different forms of creative expression, but it is mandatory. We do not have the legal right to take their product just because we would also like to publish the information. You cannot use their words or, in many cases, utilize their structure without infringing their copyright.
Keeping up with restoring content is not essential. There is no deadline applies here; there will be plenty of opportunity to rewrite this content at your leisure, and it is far better to take your leisure and create usable content than to wind up having it stripped again or finding yourself blocked for violating the copyright policy. While it's unfortunate, we lose content every day to copyright cleanup. Take a look at the redlinks at this CCI. This article was a "Good Article" when we discovered it had been created with content pasted from the ODNB. Now it's a start. It's not good news for anybody, but removal of copyright-infringing content is urgent as part of the Wikimedia Foundation's demonstration of due diligence.
Again, I recommend the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". My user page includes a couple of other links that might be helpful as well as a brief explanation of close paraphrasing concerns in US copyright law. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me elaborate further in response to your note that "fee-based research service for industry and government" is difficult to express, you need to evaluate your usage of this material in context. If you had used merely that phrase, and all other material was written in your own language, this would like be unproblematic. But when you utilize their words and their structure...
To assist the post–World War II expansion in scientific research, the John Crerar Library became one of the first to offer a fee-based research service for industry and government.
To assist the post–World War II expansion in scientific research, the directors established an innovative fee-based research service for industry and government.
...you have a different issue. When this is done in conjunction with other close taking, you are more likely to rise to substantial similarity, but even if you do not, you run into issues with policy. Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright are constructed conservatively to keep content as reusable as possible. You can not paste even one sentence from a non-free source without following the requirements of WP:NFC. Too close a paraphrase of a single sentence does not rise to a violation of WP:C, but closely paraphrasing in several sentences or paragraphs does. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The important thing is that you are raising a question of policy not a copyright concern. I have forwarded to OTRS an email from the Cornell News Service giving permission to paraphrase and to create derivative works from their press releases. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that; the policies on copyright were created conservatively to avoid copyright concerns. Hence, they seem interrelated to me. As to your letter to OTRS, I've read it. Have you taken steps to address the concerns in the reply you received? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I have provided the email address and contact there, and I think it would be up to the copyright and or OTRS team to follow up. I have done my part by contacting Cornell, Salem State College and the University of Miami. The amount of time I can spend on Wikipedia is limited and I have reallocated time over the past two weeks from other pressing matters in my life to address your concerns. It seems to me that we are covered by removing any possibility of a copyright infringement lawsuit over the article, but that a separate policy concern is being raised in terms of trying to use Wikipedia to leverage the freeing up of content for use in hypothetical other non-Wikipedia works into the perpetual future. If you want to go back and expand the request, I will not get in your way. I will continue to patrol for literal copyright infringement, particularly if it sticks out as POV or puffing. Racepacket (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If you don't follow up, the matter will almost certainly close without the logging of any permission. The OTRS team is small, and there is always a backlog of hundreds of e-mails requiring response (around 700 as of this writing). It's very unlikely that any OTRS agent is going to pursue a usable release for content on unspecified articles. We don't do so even when an article is identified; it's up to the correspondent who wants the content to do that. However, if you don't have time that's fine. Many permission e-mails pass through OTRS that do not clear because they do not use the terms that we must require. This requirement is not shaped by policy in the same way that WP:V or WP:NPOV are. This is Wikimedia Foundation mandate, as currently documented at its Terms of Use. Our content must be free for reuse by downstream users; to quote the principle there, "To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works." We are not permitted to accept it unless it is public domain or licensed under CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahunt's bad faith
Ahunt is misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt is showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. Ahunt interprets them to suit his POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
You renamed the "rsmas house" reference to "vkhouse" in the first place just so you can remove the quotation marks. I am not the one making a point, you are. And when you do revert me, try not to overwrite it with your offsite version again.
You don't like typing out the quotation marks. I come in and add them. Is that so fucking difficult to deal with that you remove them in every edit you make?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to add the quotes to the references you type, I can't stop you. But please do not edit my edits for that pointless purpose. They are optional and do not affect the article. They only make more work for the parser programs on the servers. I believe that I added that source. Racepacket (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You may have added it, but I added the "name" field for the references.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion needed
As MNelson requested, I have placed references in the proposed modification to the Gatineau Park article. I would like your opinion/approval/disapproval/suggestions on the matter.
--Stoneacres (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I will be glad to be review the article University of Miami you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. I may not be able to get to this until the weekend but I will not forget. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
I have completed the review and it looks very good. Two minor issues to clean up and I believe it is ready for GA. Nice work. Please see the review page for details. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Racepacket. Given that you've looked into the popular pages bot, I presume your failure to reply to (and removal of) my response here was intentional. That's a real shame, especially because I am here to give you some helpful advice about things that can useful for WikiProjects. If you wish to shun potential collaborators then you have succeeded. Unfortunately for the running project, you have managed to annoy someone who has created and expanded dozens if not hundreds of articles relevant to the topic. I'm a friendly enough guy who is happy to talk about anything. I'm also very good at what I do, and (if you so wish) I will continue to be so without involving myself with the running project. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean by personal attacks; I've done nothing of the sort. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else (?). In terms of scope I feel that athletics and running clearly overlap at points, but are distinct enough to merit separate projects. Editors like Darius Dhlomo, for example, are very interested in throwing events – something unrelated to running but very much a significant aspect of athletics. Project-wise, WP:RUN said nothing about track and field events until May 2009 – More than a dozen people had already expressed an interest in the newly created WikiProject Athletics by that point.
I see little indication that the running project was ever intended as a track and field project up until then (through either stated scope, actual scope, or project discussion). That was the reason I set up the athletics project. It was never my intention to duplicate the scope of WP:RUN.
I believe this misunderstanding stems from the fact that you do not understand what WikiProject Athletics concerns (as evidenced by your response regarding the taskforce idea). Yes, there are nuances in English between North America and elsewhere: just as there is a difference between football and football, there is a difference between athletics and athletics. However, it has been hard to explain to people that athletics in European languages does not equate to track and field. Athletics contains a number of sports, as notably identified by USA Track and Field. Despite its name, it governs more than just track and field – it governs the sports which form the European definition of athletics (as you find in Athletics at the Summer Olympics). Why would jumping, throwing and walking events be a sub-set of running? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Olympics as well as the United States, one governing body does road racing as well as cross country and track and field. People who participate in a track and field team say they "ran track for school x," even if they threw discus. We have clarified that all are within the scope of WP:RUN, so I think that you should have asked for the clarification before resorting to duplication. Racepacket (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have asked another administrator who works copyright to review your rewrite of this article, and he does not believe that the rewrite is usable as it is. His notes on the matter are viewable here. I'll make a note at the copyright listing to allow it a few more days in case you would like to rework the material.
While I'm here, I'm afraid that I have received no response in regards to my request for license for those press releases so far, aside from an immediate autoresponder telling me the individual was on vacation until March 1st. At this point, I think, permission is not likely to be forthcoming, though you never know. Perhaps it's on somebody's "to do" list. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think all the technical matters on History of Georgetown University are taken care of, its more if you feel its comprehensive enough, and I suppose I do. I put a note up on the review page about it last week. If you'd want me to go over History of Cornell University again, or look in depth at anything in particular, let me know. And I'll see about the AfDs, but I think that's a loosing battle. I'm just very frustrated by the presumption that any university buildings which aren't on the National Register of Historic Places can't be noteworthy.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
That is an incorrect assumption. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierce Tower. Multiple third party sources were provided (AIA and Emporis, not the University-affiliated books/websites) and I withdrew the nomination. NRHP is just one obvious display of notability, not the only one.--TM 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
Since you haven't responded to my requests in various AfDs, I will leave it here. Please leave productive comments at AfD. Please address the specific issues at various discussions rather than complaining about process. There is nothing noteworthy at Blackstone Hall. Not one single thing. There aren't multiple independent sources, it isn't an historic building nor was it designed by a famous architect. Yet you still want to keep it. I am not against university buildings having articles. I created Goddard Library myself. But do you note the difference? The article makes several claims to notability and has sources to back it up. These articles I've nominated for deletion are pointless articles which failed Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:GNG again before commenting. Leave reasoned thought. Please?--TM 11:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Christine Shin/Temp and if you feel that the copyvio has been properly addressed, might you then move the reworked article from the temp space to replace the bad version. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like problems may remain, specifically a few whole sentences in the sections Awards versus Recognition in this diff. I'm not sure what to do here, but I can list the article at WP:Copyright problems for more input. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. However, I have already been a member of the group for some time. Mipchunk (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the project to my attention, Racepacket. For someone semi-wiki-retired I'm pretty busy at the moment, but if I encounter any running-related articles I'll do my best to improve them. I'm not a runner myself -- my OH is a keen one, but never responds to my encouragement to join the 'pedia! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Paul olum.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Paul olum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jim Hurysz. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hurysz. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Seeking Consensus. I am seeking consensus on whether the three contributors who voted for deletion have support for their actions in removing the improved original article and substituting a stub.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia
Talkback
Hello, Racepacket. You have new messages at Nbahn's talk page. Message added 07:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
thx for reminding me <br. />—NBahn (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
McCain fundraiser
Looks like we disagree about an edit on the Fred Malek page. My point is that every presidential nominee, and many serious candidates who don't win their party nomination have many bundlers, which the Open Secrets link shows. His fundraising for McCain is implied by being a finance co-chairman, which there are fewer of. I am going to try a different version keeping the amount raised, hope you agree it also works. --Loudon clear (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Paul olum.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Paul olum.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Racepacket/Archive1! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure my date was clear, Tuesday August 10th, Sadads (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements. —NBahn (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Talkback
Hello, Racepacket. You have new messages at Nbahn's talk page. Message added 05:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
As I'm unable to PM you, I decided to contact you this way..... <br. />—NBahn (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You suggested at Talk:Grand Valley State University/GA1 that a link should be changed to [[M-45|Michigan Route 45]]. That suggestion is a MOS violation per Use Common Names. Michigan's state highways have only been named M-# since 1919. M-45 is not an abbreviation, it is the full, proper, and common, name. Also, the link to the correct article is at M-45 (Michigan highway). M-45 is a disambiguation page. Imzadi1979→ 19:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I was bored, so I read over the Grand Valley State University article and came up with some thoughts on the article. I don't want to step on your toes at that article's GA review, but would you object to me posting those thoughts there? I understand that GA reviews are a 1 person affair, but I also understand that amid the review, other people can give their opinions too.---GrapedApe (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Cornell University you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cornell University for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
M-152 GA
Pinging you to the review. Imzadi1979→ 11:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Reserve Officers Association
Hi Racepacket,
I declined the speedy tag that you placed on Reserve Officers Association as it is a notable organization which has been around for quite a long time. That said, I agree that the article could use some cleanup as it is a bit promotional so please feel free to do some clean up editing. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did not add anything about "7300 appeals". It was added here [9] by someone else. Please check facts next time. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
M-20 copy edit
It's done. Any further comments are appreciated. I'm curious that you ticked the MOS (1b) and the reference (2a–c) with question marks. Were there any concerns there? Imzadi1979→ 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Re-ping. Imzadi1979→ 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ping to my talk page, which has the same reply as the GAN Review page. Imzadi1979→ 10:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
What's the deal?
I took out one picture from the Cornell article, not three. And the picture I removed (law school) was not only to assuage sandwiching issues but also to remove redundancy, since there is a law school-related pic already on the article (which is also immediately adjacent to the other). —Eustresstalk 14:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I see what three pics you are referring to now. (Two of them were removed some time ago.) Please keep the Uris Hall and Cayuga Lake pics off -- they are of really poor quality, and there are tons of nice Ithaca campus pics in Commons. I've moved the law school pic to this section to try to meet both of our objectives. —Eustresstalk 14:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Cornell
Since you were asking about my thought on the Cornell article, I went ahead and opened a peer review for it. I'll put my thoughts there, since I think that's less messy than a sprawling discussion on the talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
TRHS GAN review
Thanks for your review at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)/GA1. I have responded to all comments and have some questions there. I wasn't sure what you were referring to in regards to refs #76–80. If they didn't load or open correctly, I had no problem opening them on my computer. I also have to disagree about the length of the lead based on what I experienced at FAC recently. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The only questions I had were in regards to specifics and detail, which are posted at the review. I went ahead and removed the color mention (which is explained at the review) and tried to remove some things that it could do without and still be "concise". I also tried to be a little more general where I could in the Curriculum section so that it was less of a glorified list of classes. Taking 132 pages of a course catalog and putting it into a few paragraphs isn't the easiest thing to do... :). As far as I know I have responded to every aspect of the review and done my best to comply with suggestions. One thing to bear in mind is how it is organized. Because there's no established standard for U.S. high school articles, each one incorporates its info in different ways. The curriculum section in the TRHS article is longer, but it also incorporates cocurricular and relevant extracurricular portions and includes some notable accomplishments that other articles may have in different or separate sections. Another editor expressed concern about the stability of course offerings. From my experience, the course catalog has been fairly stable for at least the past 10+ years I have been associated with the school. Every class I mentioned outside the recent foreign language additions and the new academy program has consistently been available for quite awhile. Information that seemed temporary, unstable, or questionable (like the school's claim about National Merit Scholars) I didn't include. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and patience. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. My Internet access is limited at the moment, but for some minor things, other USRD members like Fredddie (talk·contribs) should be able to help as well. Imzadi1979→ 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I happen to be at the library right now, and I replied at the GA page. Imzadi1979→ 19:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I replied yesterday long before I left the library... Imzadi1979→ 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
GAN question
Hello- I'mn assuming you have some experience with GAN, or at least a little more than I do. I recently reviewed and had to fail the University of Nevada, Las Vegas article, which I finished 2 days ago. I noticed today that it was renominated yesterday despite not having much of anything done since the review. My question is, do I fail it again (it can qualify for quick fail because it has a citation style tag in the References section) or should the nomination be removed? That article and another nominated by the same editor were my first ventures into evaluating GANs, so I'm not totally sure. Any suggestions would be helpful! --JonRidinger (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Amending what I said, there have been some additions, particularly in the history section, but the citation style and prose concerns are still there, not to mention content. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Joy Masoff, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandstein 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Rutherford Hayes
I saw your GA review and I agree with your concerns, and then some. I'm working my way through a couple of biographies of him with the intention of bringing it up to FA. I think it needs a total re-write, and I hope to do one by Christmas. --Coemgenus 22:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The re-write is finished. I'd be interested in your opinion, if you have time to review it. Coemgenus 11:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comments of the talk page. For some reason the talk page doesn't show that it had once been deleted for non-notability following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (as it was then called). The "new" article managed to pass at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 1. I agree about the OR, obfuscation regarding the relationship of the defunct literary society and the fraternity chapter, and the inflated claims. See my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society and in Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. The new article isn't all that much different from the old article and in fact includes even larger amounts of spurious material about the fraternity chapter and it's "importance" ar Cornell than the old one. But I suspect there's not much that can done about it now and from past experience, the article's "owner" will revert any attempts to edit it for accuracy, neutrality, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(response to this comment to keep discussion in one place) Well, that was a bold move.:-) However, the result has created yet more problems although not directly through anything you've done. The original author has now restored "his" version article at The Irving Literary Society as a content fork via a cut and paste. If nothing else, this will have to be remedied by an adminstrator to merge the histories. I've contacted User:EustressUser:Cirt, the adminstrator who handled the original restoration of the article following the deletion review to sort out the tangle. [10] I suggest you bring up this issue and seek help at WikiProject Cornell University, and possibly seek advice from an administrator as to whther there is an appropriate place to raise the issue to a wider audience. The original article is full of original research, synthesis, and actual misprepresentation of the sources. I had tried to discuss these issues with the article's creator during the draft stage, but to no avail. And after this breath-taking statement of ownership:
"Many of your suggestions have been exceedingly helpful; but like many editors, you seem to want to be the writer"
I took the page off my watchlist [11] until another editor contacted me at the beginning of October.[12]. My main focus on Wikipedia is writing articles on music and the arts, and I'm a "Cliffie not a Cornellian. ;-) I can't waste any more time on trying to improve that article unless, or until, its creator starts editing in accordance with Wikipedia policies and the ultimate title/location is sorted out. He (or the several "associated" user accounts) will simply revert everything. I will, however, comment on the article talk pages as appropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
AN/I After contacting User:Cirt, he suggested that it would probably be best to deal with it at AN/I. You'll find the discussion here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I just opened this case before I saw your comments at ANI. You may wish to comment, add evidence, etc. I did not name Lebowski as a sock, but feel free to add that user if you wish.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Cornell's fraternities
I didn't want to distract from the AFD, but I was curious as to what sort of ammendment is being proposed.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily concerned about wikipedia; more about how the current Irving Society presents its history in self-publications, talking to students in the recruitment process, and in Cornell's internal publications. This whole thing has made me question the veracity of the articles in the school's paper, etc. This is something that really should be looked into.4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
An actual university staff member was involved? Then in my view that person needs to be fired or at least severely reprimanded for breech of ethics.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well I'm sure a letter from the university to both the "Communications Director" and to the national office of Phi Kappa Psi would put an end to that soon enough.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for James F. Neal
On 31 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James F. Neal, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
I have major questions as to whether your last edit to AN/I contained WP:OUTING or not, so I have reverted and revdeleted it. If you can find another admin who will say "That's not outing" and restore it, that's fine with me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. We can work together, and this is not an easy process for someone to learn on a hour or so train commute to and fro (HotSpot technology is amazing); understanding our differences will be important. Many editors find identity in their work, regardless of COI. You and I are passionate about the University, and it does affect our work. I always thought Dick Compton's bio was the most vulnerable, yet you did not choose it for AfD. That was picked up by the students, unfortunately, who saw your selections not based on notability, but on notability accordingly to your generation's views. They are smart kids. And then you just kept going; the passion of your approach can be scary at times and it shows in your editing history. But that is ok, directed at someone else, please : ). Dad was Frank Rhodes squash partner; Dick Ramin mentored me in his last 5 years of life; Isaac Kramnick is a close friend; I have volunteered about four hours per week to the University over the past 20 years, shipmate. I have run two drug dealers off that Hill, including one that had a campus-wide distribution ring (in the '90s); have raised about 4.5 million. You can hear my blood pressure rising; did not expect to be treated this way. Many of us in the 1980s were not happy with the Cornell your generation left us; the 'recovery' of the 1990s had yet to take old. Frankly, many Cornell Faculty and University administrators were not happy with the Cornell your four years left us, and they were even willing to see their own culpability in the conditions of the 1980s. But, largely through trip ups on my part -- the COI issue understood -- I see where the conflict occurred So with two of us on the dance floor of the Old Armory, we just have to watch our feet. Give my regards to Davy, Cmagha (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.
You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The Irving
How on earth did this long-since defunct society suddenly become such a contentious topic??? Even as a lover of obscure pieces of Cornelliana, I've been utterly confused by the spate of editing going on the past few months about The Irving.
(Also, ever consider archiving some of the older discussions on this talk page? Seems a bit unwieldy to me.) --Xtreambar (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Since May 2010. One local fraternity is claiming to be the successor to Irving, and included a link to the Wikipedia article in its rush materials. I hope it is over now. In the meantime, your efforts are welcome at the History of Cornell University, Cornell literary societies and even Cornell Plantations. (I wear my multicolored rants from User:Ryulong as a badge of courage.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I too was fond of the polychromatic nature of the declamations, now that you mention it. There's also something oddly festive about a cascade of warning templates and red links showering down a talk page, such as for this "copyright scofflaw", now indefinitely blocked. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Racepacket, I have just expanded the I-Fly article with some more sources and an image that I found. Do you think that in its current shape it has a chance to pass WP:CORP? I really dare say that there are many airline articles around here that look much worse. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Source ?
Source, please, for the info you added to page = I Love Bacon! ??? -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I've found a source and re-added. Couldn't resist the challenge. I'm taking your talk page off my watch list now, lest other food items distract me from my normal interests.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore!!! This is now Done. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean for this comment to be a sect at the GA Review subpage, or just at the main talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A section of the talk page. I am trying to discourage IP editors from adding extraneous stuff to the page. Racepacket (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it. -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions, at Talk:Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard/GA1. I have attempted to address and respond to all of your recommendations. There were only a few points I could not address - there is not more about that info in WP:RS sources. Hopefully the changes are sufficient and satisfactory for GA at this point in time? Thanks again for doing the review, -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will do a bit of research and attempt to address your recommendations point-by-point. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
note
Hi, although I removed the content earlier today, I had in my memory a version of the content that included three or four court records and that was sizably larger than the content actually was when I had a good look at it. As such although I don't as such support its inclusion as I feel as the case is still in appeal and that there is a lot of pushing and shuving so to speak surrounding its inclusion, I am taking myself out of the loop so to speak and won't edit the article again. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I respect what you are trying to do. We must avoid republication. The pending appeal isn't relevant. Racepacket (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, best wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe articles should be censored, but I have also added information on the other trial witnesses that are more relevant to the case. KimChee (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Did the source posted here not satisfy your question? Otherwise, can you explain this edit? KimChee (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I am willing be open minded about this, but you have not yet supplied a published source to support your delete. Please respond. KimChee (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Per your previous recommendation, I have moved follow up discussion to the article's talk page. KimChee (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I made another copyedit pass and have a suggestion that I will post here to keep the GA review page as clear of clutter as possible: as the Impact section is turning out to be an effective conclusion to the article, I suggest moving the tributes section (as its short size at the end makes it feel somewhat out of place) up between "Discovery of remains" and "Arrest of suspected killer" as that would also fall more in line with the general chronology of the article. Also, per one of your suggestions to integrate the quotations into the prose, placing Susan Levy's comment about the lack of closure between the announcement of the verdict and her effort to seal the trial evidence would segue the two events together. KimChee (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt left some additional comments. I am going to expand the memorial section as he recommended splitting that from tributes. Let me know if you would prefer me to hold off. KimChee (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead. I did some research and could not find much other than a few press mentions of anniversary services. The Levys put their money into finding Chandra and then for a few years into a foundation, which hasn't even kept up its website. Racepacket (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I finished a pass at conservatively expanding that section with some additional details. I did not find much in terms of scholarhships, etc. either. KimChee (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I also checked independently and did not find enough material for a tribute section. I will take another pass at expanding the memorial section a little more and leave a comment seconding your opinion. KimChee (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your considertion during the GA review of Chandra Levy, which is now over. At times it felt as though it took longer to get the article to GA than it did to solve the case and convict the criminal. Please feel free to edit away at the article without worrying about creating a moving target. There is no need for any further dispute resolution between us, I am willing to trust your judgment. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I am happy that the process did come to a cordial point. I think Cirt did exact a lot of work because he skews towards FA standards and the article ended up much larger than I had originally anticipated. If you do not mind, I would like come back to you after taking this article for peer review for FA. KimChee (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, the article is undergoing a peer review with an experienced editor I crossed paths with before during FAC. He left some feedback regarding Impact that I thought you may want to look at first as I recall you had worked hard on this section. KimChee (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
If you do not mind, I will run the image by some experienced reviewers. If they do not feel the sources meet WP:Verifiability, I will let it go. KimChee (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Reply
You should merge that section with the one above it called "PR representative". Tijfo098 (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not add that Santee died in Kansas, but, according to the LA Times obit, he died in Eureka, CA. I'll put the link up on the article. Worc63 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I bet that is a typo by a California-centric editor. All of the other sources says "Eureka, Kansas." Racepacket (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The LA Times sent me an email thanking us for pointing out the error and said that they will correct the obit. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I am at the LAT page now. They haven't uploaded a correction yet. Worc63 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well at least Wikipedia has it correct. Racepacket (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone from the Sons of Confederate Veterans or a similar viewpoint appears to have been keeping an eye on that article for some time and is very protective of it. I implemented a quick fix to get it to its current state, but further expansion might be problematic - see [13]. Let me know if you intend to work on it further and need help. Recognizance (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Universities issue
Hello Racepacket -- I see that you are a member of Wikiproject Universities -- not sure if you keep the project page on your watchlist, though. I wonder if you would be interested in having a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Attempt_to_delete_Category:Unrecognized_accreditation_associations. I don't know what your perspective will be -- perhaps you won't agree with my sense that there is a problem -- but I'd like to make sure this issue gets some attention. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your review observations on my GA nomination of the above article. I have addressed all issues raised by you and I hope they meet your concurrence. I will make changes to some of the text and the title heading of the article after you agree with the text or modify it as appropriate--N.V.V. Char Talk . 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
I have addressed the three queries. Thanks.--N.V.V. Char Talk . 10:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for GA approval. It has been a very nice interaction which was also educative for me.--N.V.V. Char Talk . 12:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
GA Review update
Hello Racepacket, I hope you are doing well. :) I have performed multiple edits to attempt to address the helpful suggestions you made in the GA Review. Thanks very much, the article is better for it. ;) I updated the response, at Talk:Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the suggestions, I have implemented the changes, and updated this at the GA Review subpage. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This obviously significantly impacts the subject matter of Chandra Levy. Would you like more time with the article? -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think about 48 hours should do it. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Virginia State Lottery 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:Virginia State Lottery for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for your improvements to Arthur E. Morris, which I'm positive will save the article from deletion. I always admire people who respond to a deletion request by adding content to the article and improving it, rather than simply standing by idle or arguing about it. Well done! — HunterKahn 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Ultimate Fighter
Many of the changes you are proposing appear non-controversial. Would you be willing to help out and just make the changes? Thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
Hi Racepacket. Thanks for both picking up the article review and your suggestions. I've been unexpectedly away recently for personal reasons in recent days but I will take up your suggestions in the GA review, if not tomorrow, then in the next two days. Thanks for being patient! SFB 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Just a message to say thanks for your time and effort on reviewing the article, I've really appreciated it. I know these things can be quite time consuming! Good luck on taking the Cornell University article to GA status. Take care. SFB 10:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I have started reviewing your GA nomination of Cornell University; I have placed some initial comments on the review page on stuff that I feel needs some more improvement at Talk:Cornell University/GA2. Note that I'm still in the process of reviewing, and that it may take a little bit due to the size of the article. Regards, –MuZemike 03:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please take your time. This was the WP:UNI collaboration of the month for August, so it will be good to see that the project can reach its goal. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you aren't watching my talk page :) --JonRidinger (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Theodore Roosevelt High School
Hi, It might probably advance any discussion about the article if future comments were to be centred on the Talk:Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) instead of across several user talk pages. An editor has already started a discussion there. --Kudpung (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your major quality improvement to this GA nominated article. I think we are very close now, hope you could spend a bit more time to add links to other UN articles. The main UN article, itself not a GA, has some good links, but by far not complete. Maybe we could try to include in the See also section a complete list of UN organizations at the NY headquarter. Shenhemu (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that the function of the footer template {{United Nations}}, which appears at the bottom of the article? Racepacket (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not the same, I was thinking more about something like the List of United Nations Organizations but only the ones with their head office within the UN Headquarter. I think this would be very helpful for users to quickly find out who is actually residing there. Shenhemu (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Congrats, this as a nearly heroic effort. Mystache (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
M-66
I'm home now, and I responded to your comments on the /GA1 page. Imzadi1979→ 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Re-pinging to light up your orange bar. Imzadi1979→ 00:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
reply to comments at WPUS
Thanks for commenting at WPUS. I noted it in the comments there but I also wanted to let you know that the code of the template can support your template not using class and importance. There are a couple ways we can do it if your interested. --Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Don't Forget the Bacon!/GA1
I responded there, that is fine with me, thank you very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Re:GA Reviews
Thanks for the advice, I will do that next time. Dough4872 16:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, -- Cirt (talk), award The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Racepacket, for outstanding and impressive politeness and professional demeanor and conduct throughout the Good Article candidacy and reviewing process. Thank you very much for your model behavior - other fellow Wikipedians could learn a great deal by your example. -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: GAN NJ 26
Never post a GAN notice on my talk page ever please. Its written right on my talk page when you edit it. No talkback or GAN/FAC tags. I am very capable of noticing my own GANs. I never like it and am deleting it straight off the page. Will get to the review after.Mitch32(TransportationHistorian) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh, don't worry. My watchlist is 17,222 pages long and every page I edit is on there, so I see these on a basis. I may point out, you've got some learning to do so man. I may point out that Virginia 27 the one you nominated needs serious work.Mitch32(TransportationHistorian) 07:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent interest in the White privilege article. The article needs a lot of work, so admire anyone who is willing to take on the task of fixing it. I have noticed that you recently reverted some edits that removed words to watch. Please note that adding certain words, like however, can constitute editorializing, giving the impression that some parts of the article have more weight than others. Because I can tell by your other, very welcome edits that you have an interest in bringing balance to the article, I thought you would want to be aware of this. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
White Privilege Revisited
I would like to have an article that is free of editorializing, spelling errors, and claims that are unclear or lacking a reliable source. This is after all in line with Wikipedia's policies or manual of style. Unfortunately in your recent edits to White privilege you seem to be contributing to these problems. After our first talk I thought you were on board with eliminating the words to watch, so I am very disappointed that you have reinsterted editorializing into the text.
While you have given some explanations of your actions on the talk page, which I have appreciated, it has been very limited. Please note that when you fail to adequately explain your edits in your edit lines or fail to respond to questions raised by your fellow editors, it can be taken as a sign of incivility. As I have no interest in getting into an edit war, I will not immediately revert your edits. However, because it is our job to try to bring articles in line with Wikipedia policy, I will be tagging your text. I ask that you let the tagging remain until the issue has been resolved to other editors' satisfaction. I also ask that in the future when someone removes text that has multiple issues, you do not reinsert it until at least most of those issues are resolved. I think that if you try to reach a compromise with other editors, you will find that we will help you make a more balanced article.
The article Virginia State Route 27 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Virginia State Route 27 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Please heed the advice given in the last two reviews and address those concerns before renomination. Imzadi1979→ 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just posted a reply at Talk:WCSP-FM outlining updates made to the article per your suggestion, and just a couple notes about where it worked out differently. Hope that's enough to pass the requirement, but willing to go further if necessary. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Just saw your note, and glad I passed GA by making those fixes regarding the wording. One follow-up question, though, the dates in the body of the article are consistent and then the dates in the References are consistent. Is there a guideline recommending that only one be used for both? If so, I'm not familiar with it, and could you point me to it? Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And then I saw your comment on the Talk page. Makes sense to me, and thanks again! I would certainly like to be involved with GA review sometime soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it! I really hope the engineering report coming out next month contains data to fill in the gaps you identified. I'm not going to nominate the article for FA until then. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
ILR School
Hello. You made some nice improvements to the article, but I reverted a few changes that were inaccurate and inconsistent with previously established consensus.
Cornell HR Review is the official name of the journal -- HR has never been spelled out Human Resources
It is best to simply bold ILR School in the lead since Cornell University is linked later in the lead sentence (this avoids redundancy) and since this is the name the school goes by officially now (see official website). The full, original name is, however, mentioned later in the lead.
We don't use a generic Cornell logo on an article about a specific unit of the university
Regards —Eustresstalk 00:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We went through this with the Human Ecology school a few year ago. Wikipedia doesn't do "branding" we do truth. Your recent changes to the article, including the renaming are not consensus, and are contrary to fact. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess we disagree then. I don't see anything "untruthful" about the way it is now. It's superior for the reasons I mentioned, in addition to the fact that that is the name by which the school goes now. —Eustresstalk 00:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I would consider hard survey data as to what names are being used by the general population, but there is a big difference between the intent of a branding campaign and its acceptance by the general public. I think there is some merit to keeping the article consistent, so we added NYS to each infobox, and used the full official name in the lead sentence. When I was there everybody called it "Ives High" because of the lockers lining the hallways, so we had better stick to the official name rather than what the school is called in popular culture. Racepacket (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you have reverted my edits a second time. I will again restore the text with a slight compromise. If you revert again, you will be blocked for violation of WP:3RR. I suggest we work this out and let others chime in if necessary via article talk page. But edit waring only leads to a block. —Eustresstalk 01:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for for the following reasons: (1) edit waring (continuing to push your preferred naming of the ILR School despite warnings 1, 2, and 3 to wait until the WP:REQMOVE you initiated is closed and since your behavior has now spread to multiple articles 4, 5, and 6); and (2) disrupting the community (tag bombing7). 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 ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Eustresstalk 20:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked Hello. I have unblocked your account pursuant to WP:INVOLVED, a policy which I was unaware of. Admins aren't perfect. I apologize for the error; however, I do feel the grounds for the block were valid. —Eustresstalk 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
marching bands
I think all the articles make at least a claim to notability , and are therefore not candidates for speedy deletion. They certainly do need some very substantial trimming, however. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Racepacket, a query, no hurry, no worry if your busy, I was wondering about this article. It was featured at one point and is now classed as GA but its NPOV is templated and has been for over a year. On the talkpage are listed multiple issues users have with the article Is such an article still GA? and do you think a review would help improve or reclassify the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks Racepacket, really beneficial, I will improve what I can and see if others are willing to assist on the talkpage. Best wishes to you and your family and friends for 2011, happy new year. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
US 223 GAN
Just a query, but did you know that this is the sixth article (M-152, M-20, M-6, M-66, M-71) that I've nominated that you've chosen to review? Weren't you in favor of limiting editors to reviewing no more than five nominations by a single editor? Imzadi1979→ 06:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am, but my proposal was rejected. Racepacket (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've replied at the review. Personally, though, I find it a bit hypocritical to not practice what you've suggested, even if no one is required to do so. Imzadi1979→ 07:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, the alternative would be a review by someone who writes only road articles and has already has 20+ reviews in common with the author. So at least we are doing our part to avoid in-breeding and promptly draining the GAN queue. I hope you will return the favor and review a non-road article. Racepacket (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please revisit the review so we can conclude this in a timely fashion. Imzadi1979→ 17:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for reviewing this article, and for your feedback so far. I added some material to the "Background" suggestion which I hope will address the issue you raised. Please be aware that I'll be away from the computer for the next five hours — from around now (1200 PST / 2000 UTC) until roughly 1700 PST / 0100 UTC Monday — so don't be alarmed if you don't get an immediate response after this point. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. It looks like you passed this article, but I just wanted to check because the "Overall" section of the GA review page still says "Placing article on hold". Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. And thanks again for reviewing this article and guiding me in the final steps to make it "Good". In your opinion, what sorts of things might I want to consider doing in order to (eventually) raise this to a Featured Article? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Edmund Fitzgerald
Howdy! Regarding the two items you noted on WPwatchdog's page, unless I am mistaken or unless you feel otherwise, I believe those two items are already handled. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough and expert review of the Edmund Fitzgerald article.
We're aiming high....hoping to be article of the day on November 10th, the day of her sinking. We asked for a thorough review, knowing that the FA review road ahead will get tougher. Thank you for your time and expertise in providing such a thorough and expert review of the article.
Sincerely,
North8000 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly "removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Racepacket (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." - It is clear that this is being done in good faith. It is clear that there is a dispute going on between the two of you, but false accusations of vandalism just fuels the fire. --Rschen7754 08:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
GA
I'm seeing issues both ways here. His removing the review twice in hopes of getting a transportation reviewer just to get a yes vote to pass the article defeats the purpose of the GA process. However, after reading the sources, the possibility of being included in the transportation bill is speculation now, and would be better put in the I-73 article rather than this one, so if that's the only outstanding issue then it probably is a GA. Ideal solution would be to find an actual outside reviewer to look at this article, but so few people review anymore that it would be nigh impossible. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 15:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
Hello, Racepacket/Archive1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed two of your shorter reviews. This is not to say that they are bad reviews, just not the kind for which you should really be claiming points in the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Phi Sigma Alpha GA review
Hi, thank you for taking a look at the article, this weekend I wont be able to address any of the issues but next week I will be on it. I am very interested in getting the article to GA so just to let you know that I will be addressing the issues but for personal issues I wont be able to edit the next 2 days. Thanks again. El Johnson (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have been really busy at work/personal life and I dont think I will be able to do all in a short time. Question, if it is failed, could I slowly do the things that you pointed out and re-submit it? El Johnson (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, technically, Wikipedia requires me to close it out with a "fail," but don't let that discourage you. Please continue to improve it at your own pace. Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
How does DYK work
You asked. First, congratulations to the approval without questions and problems! You don't do anything now, because the nominator should not promote the hook further. Someone assembling a prep area will eventually pick it, then it gets transported to one of the six queues, and a time table tells you when that queue will appear for six hours where you live. You can watch the suggestion page and the queue page, or just go to the article and click in the toolbox (left) under 'What links here'. - After Main page the hooks go to the archive. I will watch here for more questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Just because the reviewer approved it, does that guarantee that it will be eventually selected? Racepacket (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. But as there are many reviewers now, it may take some time. The ones who assemble the sets are requested to use only half US related facts in any set, therefore in general other topics get promoted faster. If you want a certain date for a fact to appear, you can ask for that in a comment with the nomination, five or more days before that date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK worked nicely for you, the bridge went to prep to be shown on 15 Jan, Wikipedia's birthday, if my calculation is right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I will watch for it tomorrow. DYK is like a fine Swiss watch, it works, but laypeople can't follow all of the gears. Racepacket (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You can see here that it is in Queue 5, to be shown in London 6 p.m. to 12 a.m., for other time zones look at "local update times". It's an open process if you know where to look. Enjoy your first! (I have one in Queue 2.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Fellows v. Blacksmith
Sorry about the edit conflict mix up earlier and thanks again for taking the time to review this. I have made a lot of changes based on your comments and replied. Please review these at your convenience. Savidan 05:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I was able to take care of your second round of comments. Thanks for all your help. Savidan 06:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hayes GA
That's fast work on the review! I've fixed most of what you wanted fixed, and left a few comments or follow-up questions on the rest. Coemgenus 14:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough (and fast!) review of this article. It was a pleasure working with you. --Coemgenus 12:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Wabash Memorial Bridge
On 15 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wabash Memorial Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after 53 years, Indiana's last remaining manual bridge toll booth on the Wabash Memorial Bridge, was replaced with an automated toll collection system? 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.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Robert Latham Owen
Thank you for your review and comments. I will plan to work my way through them. Nandt1 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re:WikiCup question
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)
/* Margaret Thatcher */
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)
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)
Thanks from me too, and for having the courage to undertake the review of what might well have become a contentious subject. MalleusFatuorum 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bacon Ice Cream
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
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).
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)
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)
Your comment on WPUS
I wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment on the WPUS talkpage. --Kumioko (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Talkback
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)
DYK for New Harmony Toll Bridge
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.
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)
Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Sam Patteson
pattessm@jmu.edu
Hi
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)
Be my mentor
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
BE MY MENTOR???
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.
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)
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)
Could you sign your posts please
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)
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)
Autopatrolled
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
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)
Your WikiProject Messages
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:
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)
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)
ANI notice
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)
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)
Mentor Request
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).
You can drop your campaign I left the project
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)
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)
Thank you. Racepacket (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
JMU Energy Policy Class
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)
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. ArcticNight 02:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
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)
WikiProject United States. Its time to let it go
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)
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)
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)
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)
DYK for Miami Project to Cure Paralysis
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.
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.
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)
I have passed the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Gulet Mohamed
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.
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))
WPUS Communications policy
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)
Rutherford Hayes FAC
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).
Hey, I left something in response to Kumioko's comments, Sadads (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
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)
Question
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)
GA noms
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
DYK for Landis Report
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.
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)
The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.
Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent addition to Marguerite Ross Barnett has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Brian Reading (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. I may not be able to get to this until the weekend but I will not forget. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
; see Talk:University of Miami for eventual comments about the article. Well done! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
; see Talk:Cornell University for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
. 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:Virginia State Lottery for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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!