User talk:Racepacket

Prior discussion have been archived here and here

WT:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2#The time for endless discussion is over

A yes or no answer would be appreciated at the above discussion page section. Imzadi 1979 → 14:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I asked on the RFC talk

I asked a question on the RFC that I was hoping you would answer. It seems to have been lost and the thread hijacked by others, but I just split out that part into a new section. I asked if you thought we at USRD felt our standards overrode the GA criteria, and then I explained how I thought they fit together.

I'd really like to discuss this with you because I think we can come to an understanding. Thanks. –Fredddie ™ 22:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Rs chen 7754 04:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I posted my thoughts at the RFC. No matter what happens, I hope you'll stay with the project--you're an asset. Good luck! --GrapedApe (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

Have started a review of this. I feel the prose needs a bit of work and have left lots of comments. Some are minor issues and questions, but I feel there is a lot of work needed to get it up to the required standard. I am hoping we can get there though. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I userfy the page, make proposed changes, and then later move the changes back into article space. Here, we also have U of Miami students and recent graduates also active in the page, so I am not clear what the best way is to proceed. Perhaps have a subpage of the article and post a invitation on the article's talk page? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond here but since it had already escalated I thought it better to leave a comment at the mfd. Normally I wouldn't care how the edits were done, but seeing as another editor is involved I believe it would be best to make the changes in mainspace. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to work with you in any manner that you see fit. I have made many changes to the userfied page already. I can have it reviewed for any inadvertent close paraphrasing and then posted into user space. Alternatively, you can review what has been done so far yourself, and we can move it to article space. Going forward, I can edit article space directly and run any textual additions past you and if you agree that they are not a paraphrase, I can post them to article space. Alternatively, we can stick with the subpage, that would be reviewed for inadvertent close paraphrasing once by a third party at the end of the review. It depends on what you feel comfortable doing. Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be comfortably reviewing the userfied article before it hits mainspace. If you have paraphrasing concerns maybe you can get someone else to check them before transferring them or you can post them to the review page and I can check them there. Note that I am not an expert in this area and will just be using my best judgment.AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate the two major options: Original plan: I make all of the changes on the userfied page. They meet your approval regarding whether they address your GA concerns. That page is then scanned once for possible close paraphrases and is posted into article space. Modified plan: I make non-text changes to article space and put proposed text changes somewhere else (the review?) - you review the proposed text changes for inadvertent paraphrasing (which is easy to do because you have to check them anyway) and we post them as we go along to the article space after each review.

I have a volunteer that I use to check for inadvertent close paraphrasing, but I would like to minimize the number of times that I ask him to review each article. I do not care whether the volunteer checks the changes or you check the changes, just so that they are checked. (Please see GA criteria 2.) It is a constraint that I am operating under. Thank you for your understanding, Racepacket (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option two sounds fine. It keeps everything more transparent AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Racepacket/RSMAS

User:Racepacket/RSMAS, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Racepacket/RSMAS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Racepacket/RSMAS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so intesely tired of you bullshit attempts to get these pages into good or featured status. There is absolutely no fucking reason why anyone would need to copy the entire code of an article and userfy it during a Good Article nomination. If people want to edit the article, they're going to edit the actual copy. Not your subpagethat you are going to use as some insane "consensus" copy that you are going to use to overwrite the code of the live page. I am tired of your nonsense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect and invite you to participate if you wish. However, I can't edit the article directly without userfying it first. I propose that we all edit the user copy. I will respect your changes there. Once it is finalized, we will check it for any copyright problems and then move it to article space. I appreciate your friendship and understanding. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell ever said that you cannot edit the live article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, please be civil. If Racepacket wishes to sandbox this article for editing, he may do so. This may be done to prevent accidentally damaging the actual article (which is good practice) or for some other reason that Racepacket wishes. — P C B 00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fuhghettaboutit. Racepacket (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a need to sandbox an entire article that has been live for years for the sole purpose of having NO ONE edit the actual article. If you cannot be trusted to edit the live copies of articles, why are you allowed to be involved with the GA process?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archive of your talk page

Hi Racepacket. Just a quick note to let you know I had to archive your talk page manually this morning, because some users were finding the size of the page was causing issues with editing, and some were unable to edit it at all. I've linked the archive at the top of your page, please contact me if you have any concerns over this. Regards, Fish ^Barking? 00:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metro

Yes the adition looks okey.©Geni 00:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Racepacket

Arbitrator NewYorkBrad has posted an idea for resolving the pending case by mutual agreement. Please review the current state of discussion at the case request pace and provide your response to the idea at your earliest convenience; the decision on whether or not to open a case is pending your input. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my updated statement; we've come to an agreement regarding the roads portion of the dispute. --Rs chen 7754 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Ok, I'll solve what I can today, and I'll report you for problems, also today... ;)--Wusten fuchs 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry for some stupid questions I have made earlier on review 'cause I'm not native English-speaker...--Wusten fuchs 12:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

What's the earliest time for you to make a meetup on May 7? If we get a room at the library, it closes at 5:30pm, so we could meet at 3:30pm and have two hours. And, continue socializing some place. If the time is not good for you, we need to think about alternative meetup locations. --Aude (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

noon. Racepacket (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The library probably will work. We can reserve the meeting room at Tenleytown from 3-5:30 (meeting 3:30-5:30pm). --Aude (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 376

Hey sorry, I didn't see your messages before. Yes, I am taking a break from the I-376 article. Yes, i just want to put the Good Article nomination on hold for right now. I am focusing on other articles. Thanks for your patience, and I'm sorry to leave you hanging. Jgera5 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's go ahead and finish it tonight then. I don't care if it passes or fails, since some of the detractors have done other work on it since. If it doesn't pass I'm not renominating it for a while. Jgera5 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I see that you have interest in WP:GAN based on your recent contributions. May I ask you to review my nomination (UPLB)? Thanks. Moray An Par (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RideShare Delaware

Where did you get the version of the article you started with from?©Geni 02:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing appears to have been lifted. for example the school pool section comes from http://www.ridesharedelaware.org/school_pool/ .©Geni 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Employer services is still to close to http://www.ridesharedelaware.org/employer/ I haven't checked the rest.©Geni 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia's GA nomination

Alright Mr. Racepacket, I went piece by piece through your GA assessment of Columbia University and corrected everything I possibly could. If something wasn't referenced, I did the research myself and found the necessary citations. If it was unable to be verified by me personally after an extensive amount of research, I deleted it; thankfully, this was rarely the case and most of the information was easily verifiable with only moderate amounts of digging. For the most part I was able to fulfill all of the requirements you requested; however, there were a few deviations. Check out the GA article review page to see my comments. I'll post it for review again later and you can tear it apart some more. Thanks for working with me and reviewing stuff as I try to bring this article up to par. Have a good one. Nowhereman86 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Columbia

I don't THINK that remaining information is too detailed. I tried to keep it a reasonable length seeing as the section had to sum up 250 years of stuff. I tried to match the length of history summations in articles like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was around 12 paragraphs. I added a TON of new information (referenced) to the new History of Columbia University article, especially for history before 1900, which was sparse in the original. Just let me know if you think the new summation under the history section is too long and I can pare it down.Nowhereman86 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

In case you weren't aware, I'd appreciate a yes/no response to the question I asked here so that I can finish off the closing process of the respective RfC/U. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas Gracias

Thanks for all your help and suggestions with improving the article Columbia University. It was a long and arduous project, but I feel like it's come a long way and is definitely the best it's ever been since its inception in terms of verifiability and structure. I'll continue to watch over it and expand it after I take a little Wiki vacation. Again, muchas gracias. : ) Nowhereman86 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket/WMATA?

Looks okey.©Geni 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

This is my last proposal.

Racepacket will not review any more road, netball or women's sport(s)^† articles for GA or comment in their GA reviews for a year.
Imzadi1979, Rschen7754, Dough4872, and LauraHale will not GA review articles that Racepacket nominates for a year.
Racepacket stays away from the roads projects, netball and women's sport(s) for a year.
The normal dispute resolution processes may be followed if issues arise after the year is up.
All parties are civil to each other just like other Wikipedia editors are required to be.

^†Articles that pertain to American collegiate sport(s) and running are exempted from the rest of women's sport(s).

Any RfC on the subject matter of how the GA Criteria interact with various kinds of advice pages/guidelines/essays/etc. is not a part of this agreement because these parties cannot bind an uninvolved set of parties to hold/host/conduct an RfC, especially when the core issue is not actually in dispute.

I want a one word answer. Do you accept it? Yes or no? If your answer is longer than a single word and four tildes, you've typed too much. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting on that answer. I'm going to repeat myself over here though to emphasize a point. RfC/U and ArbCom are dispute resolution methods aimed at behavior, not content. The original dispute that spawned the RfC/U was summarized by Moabdave as:

Racepacket can give a very thorough and proper review when things are going well, and many people have had good experiences with him as a reviewer.
When things go bad with a Racepacket review, things go bad fast. Racepacket's actions after an unfavorable or unfortunate incident give the appearance that he goes on a rampage to the point of borderline wikistalking. This rampage can include tagging and reviewing articles, where the motivation appears to be revenge more than an attempt to improve wikipedia.

Now, we should both agree that the US 223 review was messy. I withdrew that nomination, yet you refused to let it go. The netball review was also messy, and when LauraHale withdrew it, you refused to let it go. After various issues with USRD, you went around tagging other articles with "issues". After your dramas with LauraHale, you went to the WMF on meta. These are behavioral questions that could best be attributed to personality conflicts between yourself and others. The goal of my proposal is to separate the two sides so those personality conflicts will not continue. If LauraHale is inappropriately paraphrasing content, let other editors deal with that issue. You're not the ideal candidate to be pushing that issue, since Geni still approves or comments on major editing revisions you make to articles as part of the agreement that lifted your block. If LauraHale, Dough, Rschen, myself or others are really committing egregious Wikipedia errors or violations, other parties will eventually challenge us, and we'll be the subject of our own RfC/Us. In the short term, the best course to restore some harmony in the community is to disengage the two sides. We've wasted 300K of text discussions on the RfC/U talk page alone, and countless hours of effort. We should all stop discussing the issue and fix it, which means disengagement. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept our proposal?
_______ Yes
_______ No

--Rs chen 7754 06:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Rockefeller

Well, then I'm goin to finish this, and I let you know when I'm done.--Wusten fuchs 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Wusten fuchs 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to disengage

Your conduct towards LauraHale is beginning to border on the unacceptable. I'm asking you to please stay away from her, not to go to her talk page, not to look through her contributions for problems, and generally forget that she even exists. You may have even have a general point at the RSN, but you filing it against one of LauraHale's images was little more than one more shot in this dispute. This needs to end, and it needs to end right now. --Courcelles 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second the request made above. There are plenty of other issues on Wikipedia you can engage with, any further engagement with LauraHale and her edits is just likely to generate heat, drama, and nothing of any value to the project. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I understand that things were heated a month ago during the GA review, particularly with User:KnowIG, an active editor of Netball who was previously blocked for disruptive editing, who within days of being unblocked came to dominate the GA review with disruption and personal attacks. He was finally permanently blocked for calling Bill, the GA reviewer, a "stupid Indian." I stepped in to bring the GA review to a conclusion. At that point Netball had 1,400 different editors and had been around since August 2005. During my GA review, I noticed several sourcing problems, including a photo of a Malawi team. Without regard to which editor included the photo in the aricle, I had questions and a number of experienced editors at RSN have concerns and guidance. During the GA review, Bill had concerns about term "Olympic sport" which I later shared. We now have guidance from the Legal Department of the International Olympic Committee critical of the term "Olympic recognized sport" which was introduced in response to Bill's criticism of including Netball in Category:Olympic sports. Because "Olympic" is a trademark and both Australia and the United States have special legislation protecting Olympic trademarks, Wikipedia needs to give this issue careful attention. I had also found a number of close paraphrasing of other sources particularly in the position table, although LauraHale has removed them from public view.diff So, the GA review uncovered a number of concerns which were left unaddressed at the time that LauraHale withdrew. A month has passed and it may be time to address these issue dispassionately. If either Laniveil or Courcelles want to take the lead on fixing this, I am happy to step back. I have never claimed to have a monopoly on Wikiwisdom or knowledge of Wikipedia policy, but I know that the solution can only be found through consensus and not by personal attacks, by deleting portions of GA reviews, by deleting routine talk page notices, or by deleting article merger notices. In sum, I have never seen this as involving an individual, rather there are serious policy issues involving an article that has many authors (which has since been split into a number of daughter articles carrying forward the same problems.) It does not matter who is right; what matters is that Wikipedia gets it right. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to let the matter rest is noted. Even now, after the RFC, you are continuing to harass Laura in novel ways (e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Flickr_a_reliable_source_as_to_photo_contents) and with new unfounded allegations. e.g. above you say "LauraHale has removed [your evidence] from public view" when (ignoring the fact that she removed it because you posted it to a closed GA1) what she "removed" is still on that page. Because you had already posted it to that previously, and it had been discussed already.

Is that sentence the only piece of evidence you have, or is there more? If you have more, please send me all of your evidence very promptly and I will ensure that they are investigated by myself and someone more neutral, and any problems addressed. Then you can walk away from this large pit you've been digging. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, I respect all that you do for Wikipedia. However, let me assure you that this has nothing to do with LauraHale, who is only one of 1,400 netball editors. I have never tried to trace back the close paraphrasing to any particular editor, but the problem was there and is still present when the player position table was moved to the Netball rules article. I have given two examples, but there are more. I asked Moonriddengirl to find a volunteer with appropriate software to check the article. March 22 March 23 As to your comment about removing material from the Talk:Netball/GA1 review, I did provide a sample suggested solution showing how adding quotation marks in a problem sentence could easily solve the problem, but it has been deleted several times. There has been a minor disagreement as to how and when a GA review should be closed. One view is that a nominator can withdraw, but the reviewer closes. The other view is that the nominator can unilaterally close without regard for the views of the reviewer or other active editors. Hence, the difference in closing dates and the contents of the review page.

The talk page discusses the problems with the player description table and replacing them with material from the Netball Australia website. The examples I previously provided are the article says:

The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals. Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle. This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.

compares with:

This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the "attacking" goal third, including the shooting circle. http://www.internationalnetball.com/netball_rules.html

Again, the article says:

The Wing Attack can move within the attacking goal third and centre third, but not in the shooting circle.

compares with:

This player functions as the "wing defense," and can move within and across the "attacking" goal third and center third, but not in the shooting circle. http://www.internationalnetball.com/netball_rules.html

I would put the bold text within quote marks, and I can provide more. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wont surprise you that I don't believe you when I say that it isnt about Laura. Whether or not it was your intention initially to merely review the content and not the contributor, it has developed way beyond that stage.

I am asking, very bluntly, for you to put all of the close paraphrasing evidence on the table, preferrably in an email to me so it doesnt needlessly inflame the current situation. In order to quickly address the ones you have identified above, before misunderstandings take hold about what your evidence could mean, this is the edit which introduced the problems you have raised above. Interestingly the problem was partly removed a few days later[1], but the short descriptions of the moves remained.

Anyone at any decent university has access to proper plagarism detection software Turn It In; the only problem will be whether there are licensing restrictions or uni policy on usage. I'm not sure about this, but I'll look into it if the need arises. However that is quite beside the point until you have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is a systemic problem in the Netball articles that calls for an indepth or automated analysis. I am challenging you to prove that there is a significant close paraphrasing that warrants the approach you have taken. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the software came long after I graduated. Again, I have not tried to trace the problems back to a specific editor, I only want to protect Wikipedia and enforce existing policy, so we should focus on that. Racepacket (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focusing on dispute resolution right now. You haven't answered regarding providing a complete list of the close paraphrasing you're aware of. Do you intend to provide that to me? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will be happy to cooperate in any way that I can. However, just to be clear, please do not interpret any list as being directed toward any particular editor. I am careful to not do that. This exercise is only intended for the sole purpose of making Wikipedia content freely reusable and is in no way an indication of copyright infringement or a failure to properly credit or cite sources. I have never accused anyone of plagiarism on Wikipedia and I intend to continue to avoid such accusations in the future. If you feel corrections are needed in the articles, just add quote marks and there is no need to elaborate. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid the list being used against you, my recommendation is to send it via email. I hope that you will focus on preparing the list. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three days ago you said "I can provide more" and agreed to cooperate by letting someone(me) know about the other instances of close paraphrasing that you're aware of. I havent seen this list from you. Instead you've been editing, and continuing to report this same problem[2] Please focus on providing someone with the complete list, otherwise you are not cooperating at all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nagyon köszönöm

Köszönöm a kedvességét.
Köszönjük, hogy az ember vagy:
kedves és figyelmes,
érzékeny és figyelmes,
A nagyvonalú és figyelmes adakozót.
Ön önzetlen mindig,
üzembe mások előtt magát,
éreztem magam különleges és fontos.
Ez egy kiváltság és öröm, hogy ismerlek.

Ön olyan személy,
aki megkönnyíti az életet és a jobb
mindenki körülötted.
Ön folyamatosan jár
Az előzékenység
és kedvesség
felderül minden nap.
Mit tettél velem
felvillan emlékezetemben,
frissítő kellemes érzéseket
minden alkalommal,
amikor belegondolok.
Hálás vagyok, hogy,
és én köszönöm.

—J.Z., egy magyar barátja