User talk:Racepacket

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, Racepacket, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'change summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy changing! Peterdownunder (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
How to: change a page • write Simple English articles • A guide for users of the English Wikipedia
Getting Help
Administrators • Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy • How to copy from another Wikipedia Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy

The Community
Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Peer review • Cleanup
Other
Useful templates • Stubs

Book

Hello! I've moved the book you created to your userspace as we don't have/support a book: namespace. The book can now be found here. -Barras (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused. The page http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Books does not specify a naming convention, and some people seem to have created them as subpages of Wikipedia:Book. Racepacket (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Book. You can save them as a user subpage or as a subpage of Wikipedia:Book. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Experience shows that advice is rarely heeded, but here goes. You would do better on this wiki by bringing over fewer articles, and working more on the ones you do bring over. The advice is: slow down a bit, and work carefully so your pages meet Simple standards. Especially, we expect hooks proposed for DYK should already meet our standards. It's a bit much to expect others to do work you are not willing to do yourself. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry-related articles

Hello Racepacket, and welcome to our project. It is great to see another prolific editor, like you. I just wanted to point out that this is Simple English Wikipedia. I saw you bring over a few chemistry-related articles, about chemical reactions. I think you should take the time and simplify them. For science-related articles the simplification is difficult: You want to sipmlify the language, but without losing scientific accuracy. Befpre you bring over more articles try to simplify those that are there. I have found that the "start with a stub and add information" approach (incremental) may be better, for certain subjects. So please spend osme time and try to simplify what you bring over; articles that aren't seen as simple-enough, and where there is no sign of simplifying may be deleted. --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Simple English wikipedia

Adding articles from English Wikipedia can really help this wiki grow and become useful, but they have to be simple. Please see my comments at Talk:Art_Institute_of_Chicago and especially at Talk:Arlington_National_Cemetery. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned by the number of complex pages you have created. I have started a Simple talk discussion about it. Please feel free to comment there. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physical chemistry nominated for Quick Deletion

Please read Wikipedia:Simple_talk and act on the suggestions from several editors there before making any new, complex pages copied from En wiki. This is a community project with a set of shared goals. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

Having read the recent discussion on Simple Talk and having reviewed your contributions I have decided to restrict you to only creating new articles that have been simplified in your userspace first. This means you can copy an article from enwiki, or anywhere, into your userspace only. You can then simplify it and once you feel it is ready you can move it into mainspace. Any violation of this restriction will be met with a block. Regards, fr33k man 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for you

I have left an extended response for you on the Diels-Alder talk page - --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of scientific inquiry, I ran a little experiment. Summary of results: Getting simpler, but it isn't just the chemistry terms that make it complex. Full explanation at Diels-Alder talk page. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfD: Chemistry articles

I have started a discussion as to whether the chemistry pages you started should be deleted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GCMS

Could you hold off on bringing over new articles like User:Racepacket/GCMS until you have fixed the issues of the dozen or so other articles you still need to simplify and work on? Repair the issues at hand instead of adding more issues to fix later. Thanks, Either way (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding DYKs

Hi there! Some probably useful things to know about DYK:

The article should be as simple as possible—a bit like GA quality.
The article should have only few redlinks—we want to show only the best on our main page.
The hook itself should be short and pregnant—we are simple ;-)
The hook should link not only to the article nominated, it should link everything complex.

We try to only show the best we have on our main page, those people's views on what passes and what not are usually harder then the written rules. I hope this helps you a bit more. Best, -Barras (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for QD and block/ban request on Simple Talk

I've tagged Template:PDB for quick deletion. Again, copied and not simplified. This is also directly against your editing restriction. I regret that I've had to start a discussion on generally blocking or banning you. See Simple Talk. Gotanda (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request now at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion. --Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked...

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Racepacket (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

I am very surprized by this. The edit restriction requires, "This means you can copy an article from enwiki, or anywhere, into your userspace only." I copied an edited version of the article en:Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry into my userspace. Because it uses a citation template, I copied that into Template space. This was allowed by the editing restriction which applies only to "articles." There is no way that a citation template {{PDB}} needs to be simplified. (This was noted by User:Griffinofwales.) There is no "User Template" space, only a Template space and a Template Talk space. There was no violation of the editing restriction. As for the "reciprocity of the block on English Wikipedia", that does not apply as well. Internal office politics of English Wikipedia and local chapters have no relevance to Simple English Wikipedia, and no reciprocity was sought or intended. In addition, I have remained civil, constructive and a positive contributor on this wiki. There are no violations or behavioral issues. I look forward to my unblock request being considered by an administrator who is not WP:INVOLVED in the ongoing chemistry/deletion/DYK discussions. Many thanks for your consideration. Racepacket (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The community has decided to ban you, your past socks, your present socks and your future socks from editing the Simple English Wikipedia permanently -- fr33k man 12:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Pending discussion on ANI. Please be patient. -Barras (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved fr33k man 12:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Simple English Wikipedia

I have created a number of articles on Simple Wikipedia, some from scratch and others by taking an article from English Wikipedia, checking and adding sources, adding explanatory material, removing extraneous material, adding images, and simplifying the language. (One editor started testing me by copying over English article for comparison with my work (e.g. diff, but after a while copied over only one or two sections of an article making a misleading comparison.[1]) I started with articles describing popular neighborhoods in DC in anticipation of Wikimania 2012. I then did some art museums. I then did a chemistry article, and nominated it for DYK. I was asked to address the articles that it linked so I created a bunch more, which caused some users to ask "What Chemistry articles are within the Scope of Simple English Wikipedia?" In the 17th century, chemistry was about turning lead into gold, by the 19th century, chemistry was about industrial uses. In the 21st century, chemistry is studying outer space. Some Simple articles, like Valence (chemistry) teach a very outdated view. I tried to cover some articles that reflect modern theories, but ran into objections that this was over-the-head of the intended audience. I believe the intended audience for these articles is high school students or chemists that do not have English as their first language. I have not heard an contrary consensus. These articles think of electrons as probability clouds, and modern theory is better than the 19th century approach because it explains certain geometrical patterns in chemical reactions. To explain why modern theory is better, I had to create background articles describing classes of reactions where the theory makes a difference. This means using poly-syllable technical terms.

While I was discussing our goals and the best way to measure "simple" chemistry articles, I was also trying my hand at non-theoretical articles to see if those are easier to simplify. Some people interpreted my branching out to other articles while the debate was going on about the theory articles as a personal slap in the face. Other people who left comments on article talk pages, were offended when I did not respond to them, because I did not know that the comments were there. Some people were offended that I was creating background (definition) articles, while other people were offended that the articles could not be understood without missing background articles.

I think that Simple English Wikipedia should define its target audience. (Different categories of articles may have different target audiences.) I think that the readability formulas should not be used because they penalize poly-syllable words and give articles with a step-by-step explanation a worse score than the original English Wikipedia articles that do not explain the concepts. Once people decide what they want, everyone should cooperate to make the articles better. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked...

Racepacket,

Per the private email that you sent me, I have reconsidered the blocking. I believe that with proper mentorship, you will be able to get this right with a minimum of disruption. I want you to get with User:Barras before you start editing again to see where he wants you exactly. He is your mentor, so do what he says. Also, if the problems reoccur, I would have to reblock to protect the project. Thank you kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acids and bases?

Hello, Racepacket,

I don't know if you are interested, but yesterday I created Lewis acid, as it was one of the links from Diels-Adler reaction; today I created hydron, which looks like the chemical definition of proton (a positively-charged hydrogen atom, alternatively deuterium or tritium). Just now I found out that the articles we have as acid and base are very simplistic; Bronsted and Lowry described acids/bases based on hydrons in 1923; Lewis' description dates of 1939...

So I wondered if you are in the mood of updating these articles; keeping them simple in language, yet accurate in description?

Since I don't have a background in chemistry, I can't do much.

Just thoughts; glad to have you back editing... --Eptalon (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuted rear part:

Should be vertical splited helm/rudder. How to simplify? :D --WizardOfOz (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What i mean is this here. --WizardOfOz (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --WizardOfOz (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical chemistry

Hey there! I've now moved this article to your name space per the comments about complexity on the talk page. I currently think about doing this with the other remaining articles which are tagged complex too. We don't get this all done quickly, even thought that we have all the time we need. It is not very helpful to have those complex articles in our main space. What do you think? The articles aren't lost then and don't get deleted and we can get like one article per week moved back to main name space. There is just too many work here that needs to be done and I can't get all of them done right now. Best, -Barras (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Racepacket/Organometallic chemistry

I've left some comments at the link above about an article. If you want to reply at all, please message me on my talk page, thank you, DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 08:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You also have some new messages at Barras' talk page. DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 08:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Thermochemistry. See my suggestions here. I simplfied it, see the changes here. I suggest you should study them, it will help you get better at simplifying. Thank you, DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Since then, I've done some more changes, which you can view here, mainly in the first few paragraphs. If you would like, you can review the changes to check I have not made a mistake. Also, I repied to your message on my talk page. Thank you, DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 11:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Barras has given you the go ahead to move Thermochemistry, see his talk page (I thought I'd give you the honours!), thanks, DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Racepacket, why are you just importing even more en.wiki articles without even attempting to simplify them. The point of me simplifying a few was to show you how to do it. There is no point you importing articles if you don't simplify them - anyone can do that. Myself, I have a long list of articles to get through but I can't get them done because I've got to do your articles. Why are you creating even more, and adding more to the list?

Some links to help you simplify:

I hope these help, because I can't see what your problem is with not being able to simplify. DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 15:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Racepacket. If you need any help learning how to simplify, please tell me. I was thinking of expanding Translate English into Simple English for you so that you can refer to this when you are simplifying. Would you like me to do this, or would you not use it so much? Thank you, DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 07:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for removing the category on Allen Telescope Array. I thought that it was a dead en.wiki copied one. I am sorry. By the way, you are doing really well! :) DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left a couple more comments about Polymer chemistry. DJDunsie ^{(talk · changes)} 14:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are you? It's been a while since we last spoke. How are your articles going? I've left a message about Yabasic here. Thank you, DJDunsie ^(talk) 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Absorption

Hiya Racepacket! Could you add maybe just a one-line description of what the absorption article should be like at Wikipedia:Requested pages? I think in this case it may be useful for editors who would like to create the page. Regards mate, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested

As one of the people who commented on my recent proposals to delete some disambiguation pages, your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Disambiguation_pages. I am sending this to all registered editors who commented on those proposals who have not already commented at Simple Talk. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line notation, not simple

Just a heads up, please see comments at Talk:Line_notation. Also, there is still a very large backlog of unsimplified chemistry articles that you already have in namespace and have made no recent attempt to fix. Comments on relevant article Talk pages, please. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion on the relevant article Talk pages where it belongs. That way the comments are attached to the article under discussion, rather than over on my Talk page where it is disconnected and harder to follow. I've asked this before. Also, the heads up was about Line Notation which is just plain not simple at all, not about Ivy City. I look forward to responses on the article talk pages. Gotanda (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added to your recent comment on Barras' Talk page

Just keeping the discussion in one place. If you need to reply, please do so there, not on my Talk page. Gotanda (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Chemistry

Do you have to have a great knowledge of chemistry to become part of WikiProject Chemistry? DJDunsie ^(talk) 12:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome to the WikiProject. You have been helpful already with a number of articles. Thanks, Racepacket 00:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace

Per discussion here, I have moved one article from main space to userspace. I have left numerous reviews as has Macdonald-ross. See my comments on any of the articles. The problems are the same across different articles. Use simple vocabulary. Use a simple subject verb object writing style as per the manual of style. Avoid complex sentences with introductory phrases and dependent clauses. Links to Wiktionary or other complex articles are no substitute for simplification. I am able to help simplify your non-chem articles (and have done so when time allows). Six weeks with no attempt to simplify Stereochemistry means it is time for the move. See mac's comments as well. Gotanda (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Racepacket. You have new messages at User talk:Chemicalinterest/CRD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for answering my question! I understand now :) This is a quick note to let you know about some more questions that you have there. Thanks again, DJDunsie ^(talk) 09:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Article discussion on article Talk pages, please

Not on my user talk page. Discussion of articles should go on the article Talk pages. Gotanda (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification QD|A3 nominations

I have nominated Yield (chemistry) and Chemical synthesis for deletion. These articles "(have) been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." See Wikipedia:DP#A3. Gotanda (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Actually now at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion. Gotanda (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Having reviewed your edits I think you have a long enough history of using undo to reverting vandalism. I have therefore given you rollback. Cheerio fr33k man 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book

This editor is an **Apprentice Editor** and has the right to show this **Wikipedia Picture Book**.

For making a large number of contributions, and for three months service to the Simple English Wikipedia. This book is also available as a medal, a ribbon, or a userbox. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. I is quite an honor. Racepacket (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have been working really hard and it is about time you received an award! :) DJDunsie ^(talk) 11:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

...Simplify things before you save. When you added that information to Public transport, a lot of it was complex. Orashma tash 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

Thank you for your simplification message. I will try and do them (as best as I can) in the next couple of weeks, as I have a holiday (starting at the weekend). On another point, if would like help creating/fixing physics articles, then I would be more than happy to help. It looks like nearly all of the science articles on this wiki need attention - so we have plenty of work to do! Thank you, DJDunsie (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Molecular symmetry (diff) and left some comments. It is probably best if you check to see if I have made any mis-simplifications. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replied here and I hope the links help. I apologise for not replying - I somehow forgot to. Kind regards, DJDunsie (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done Conjugated system to the best of my ability (diff) but, like before, I haven't simplified it that much because I don't understand what it all means. Again, it needs checking for mis-simplification errors, especially with the section with the word complex in it. Thanks again, DJDunsie (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for QD notification

See Chemical reactivity. And, yes, I did leave a review on the talk page. Gotanda (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Administrators' Noticeboard

I asked a question about your editing restrictions and made a request. Gotanda (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???

Hello Racepacket. Hate to be a burden, but could you please elaborate on your comment here? Cheers, Orashma tash 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for cleaning up my mess, even though no one had asked you to do it. You desrveve this barnstar 100% keep up the great work! Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies

Hi Racepacket, please join in, these do not need to be elaborate or complex, four or five lines, and a reference will be plenty. The goal is to have a short stub. There should be enough information in the references here. It will help develop your simple English skills. How about internet pioneer Paul Baran [[2]] and astronomer Tom Gehrels[3] Thanks --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another QD A3

I have requested QD A3 for the article Geek that you transwikied. See the Talk page for details. Gotanda (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mails

Sorry, I haven't read any of the mails I got since the start of the month (maybe even longer), because I'm currently most of the time not really around and only do wiki-related things if it is really urgent and I get pinged on IRC. I saw your name in my inbox, but I haven't read any of it yet (along with ~500 other mails...) I've to apologize, but real life is more important for me currently. Sorry again, -Barras (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For Racepacket, who took part in the big biography weekend in October 21-26, 2011. With help from 15 other editors, 48 new biography articles were created. Thanks for being part of the team. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clements

Hi Racepacket, thanks for the work you are doing. Be careful to make them as simple as possible. The Clements article was disappointing, as it needed a lot more work to get it to standard. I am working on it at the moment. I have reduced a lot of the detail, especially where I felt it strayed from the main topic. It would be worth your time to compare your edits with mine to see what (I felt) needed to be done. Thanks,--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do that. It is important because each editor simplifies differently, so I must be able to learn from a group of different editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I have been doing other things mostly this week. Willard Boyle and Dennis Ritchie now added. You were correct, these two were much better. You should try and write one from "scratch", that is without using Enwiki, just other secondary sources. I do it both ways depending on mood. It seems to take about the same amount of time. --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism

Hello Racepacket, as to Mormonism, I have added (and to some degree simplified) a section from the EnWP article. This section is about their differences to Christianity. As I am not a follower of Mormonism, and also not an auhority on Christian theology, I am probably the wrong person to write that article. Nevertheless, I think further simpifying the section would proably be helpful.--Eptalon (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

Please see my concerns about your recent additions at Talk:Pennsylvania State University. Only (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out the title(s) of the Irish hunger strike article. I originally called it Irish hunger strike then thought it should be Irish Hunger Strike (don't know why). Of course I was right to begin with anyway. --Xania (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created articles

Hi Racepacket! I'm just here to let you know that you created quite a few articles consisting entirely of an {{inuse}} tag. Have you forgotten about these, or are you working on them? -Orash matash- 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Autoconfirmed

Yes, I know, but I started editing here nearly two years ago (see my user talk page) so the time factor didn't matter. Graham87 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to update an external link without getting a CAPTCHA (which I can't use because of my blindness ... see my English Wikipedia talk page). I successfully did that, as you can see from my contributions, so I am definitely autoconfirmed now. Graham87 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Racepacket

I recently looked over your version for Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The article is extremely good but may not be easy for everybody to really understand. Also, I don't know how to merge your version of the article into mine. Please help me out here. Angela aka September 1988 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		Thanks for taking part in the Capital City Weekend which greatly improved the quality of articles. A special thanks too, for helping to organize and inspire others to take part. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to review the other articles that are still pending. I haven't forgotten, just that life got in the way. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am now back and starting to edit again. Are there any outstanding issues/articles that you need me to check?--Peterdownunder (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linear equations

Hello Racepacket,

I have moved the page, as requested; without a redirect. --Eptalon (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template

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

When you move your articles to mainspace

...would you please check the categories? We don't have the same categories here as enwiki. Many of your articles end up with a lot of redlinked categories. I assume that's from copying them from enwiki. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I try to make sure there is at least one blue category. I hope that some of the red ones will turn blue once we have three articles that fit the new category. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind when dealing with Categories, and this is something I keep seeing even Eptalon falling back on - when in doubt, don't fake it: Ask for help. {{uncat}} is very useful when not certain. Even if you know certain cats should be there, others you could be missing which are obvious to someone used to dealing with the topic. Many people that deal with cats regularly (and Im fairly certain Auntof6 is near the top of that list) keep an eye on the maintenance category that template uses. Most users don't know that almost all people articles get at a minimum 4 categories (cheating is allowed - American singer = American and Singer), but those that watch the cat think it instinctively. When in doubt, tag it uncat (even with blue cats) and get a second opinion from those with more experience in the area. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, 201. Racepacket (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. As far as the red ones turning blue, some of the ones enwiki has are probably not as simple as we'd like here, so they could probably just be removed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Keep up the good work `:)` Chenzw Talk 06:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Per Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Hyphen_.28-.29_vs._Dash_.28.E2.80.94.29, do not make any alterations between the use of an ndash and hyphens, and please revert any changes that you have made immediately. If you continue to make changes against current policy, I will not hesitate to report you to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Thank you, Gob lin 16:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]

Manual of Style

Racepacket,

Please can you review the dashes section of the Manual of Style and add your rule:

If the words being joined are coequal and in opposition (more than just "ends of a range"), you use a dash rather than a hyphen: "gas chromatography – mass spectroscopy".

Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your work. Racepacket (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your addition. I think the topic is mostly covered now. DJDunsie (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Please do as stated above, because I have improved the article quite a bit (categorized, red links, "criticaly aclaimed"...) As stated in Requirements for very good articles, 1 or more editors have to do a revision of the article (fix the minor flaws), so I hope You do so... - All the Best! --7arazred (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article list.

Since this is a list that will just continually get copied over from the master list. If you see a link named wrong for an article we actually have. Just make the redirect as your edits will possibly get overwritten in the next update. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing of User name

Hello, can I please change my user name to Khanassassin as I changed it on the Slovenian Wikipedia. Thank You, --7arazred (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this later the day. Best, -Barras (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU Normandy 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed -Barras (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

I am airline pilot. And what about you? Best Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have lead a full life and have educational training in chemistry, physics and the law. Thank you for asking. Racepacket (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were wondering, I am at high school and I hope to do physics. DJDunsie (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DJ. As you know, WMF has had a problem with public relations firms trying to add material to Wikipedia. I have never thought that you were a public relations man. Thank you for your work. Racepacket (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

École Pour l'Informatique et les Techniques Avancées

This school is quite famous in France but I have no relationship with it so it's difficult for me to be 100% sure. But I am sure of one thing, at the webpage http://www.epita.fr/mentions-legales.html, it is written l'association déclarée Association EPITA - SIREN 443 220 223 – code NAF 8542Z and in French association=non profit. Regards.78.239.175.7 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patroller

Patroller rights granted - --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chemicalinterest/CRD

I just added 6 (sorry!) new questions to the CRD. Please can you answer them. Thank you, DJDunsie (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was just in a really bored and good mode, I answered the first three questions (hopefully understandable). Hope you don't mind, left the others to you, RP! :-) -Barras (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For working so hard on articles, and for being so kind and helful to me. DJDunsie (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words! Cirt (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA -- "A real mess"

This is not an easy subject. I do not know how best to echo and underscore the points you make here.

In other words,

A pivotal question is "solidarity with whom?" -- see Jenna Wortham, "Wikipedia to Go Dark on Wednesday to Protest Bills on Web Piracy," New York Times. January 16, 2012; retrieved 2012-1-17
The underlying facts and the controversy are evolving independently -- see Noam Cohen, "Wikipedia Protests SOPA," New York Times. January 17, 2012, citing Andrew Lih, "Wikipedia Blackout to protest SOPA (Jan 18, 2012)"

In my opinion, the most important outcome of this blackout discussion thread is that it highlights the "fragile nature of Wikipedia's decision-making". --Horeki (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and the interesting news references. Racepacket (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note about writing medical content for a general audience

As we are not writing for patients we do not typically specify "doctor" and as we are not writing for health care providers we do not typically state "patient" but rather "person with disease X". Thanks for the improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket's Day

Racepacket has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Racepacket's day!
For being such a great wikipedian and kind person,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Racepacket!

Cheers, Chenzw Talk 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

BAW

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in organising the Big Airport Weekend and making it such a success! Please accept this Aviation Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Osiris (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Racepacket, watching the new changes page has shown a lot of activity on the BAW. Looks like a great success.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please spread the word. Thank you for your contributions. Racepacket (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I not get one? :( Normandy 12:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi

Hi Racepacket! Just letting you know that I've nominated this template for deletion, as it doesn't work on simple. See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Template:Cite doi. Osiris (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium-235

Hello Racepacket,

I have removed the QD tag form the article, after a small copyedit. Please have a look if it is still as inaccurate as before. Thanks--Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Dative case

The page you wrote, Dative case, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Genitive case

The page you wrote, Genitive case, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Reference ellipsoid

The page you wrote, Reference ellipsoid, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The page you wrote, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of GRB 970228

The page you wrote, GRB 970228, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Michiana

The page you wrote, Michiana, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man

The page you wrote, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of AirTran Airways

The page you wrote, AirTran Airways, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Transponder timing

The page you wrote, Transponder timing, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling

The page you wrote, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport

The page you wrote, Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Joint Base Andrews

The page you wrote, Joint Base Andrews, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Dallas Love Field

The page you wrote, Dallas Love Field, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Focus city

The page you wrote, Focus city, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Naval Air Station Glenview

The page you wrote, Naval Air Station Glenview, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport

The page you wrote, Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of South Bend Regional Airport

The page you wrote, South Bend Regional Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Ellington International Airport

The page you wrote, Ellington International Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of William P. Hobby Airport

The page you wrote, William P. Hobby Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Charlayne Hunter-Gault

The page you wrote, Charlayne Hunter-Gault, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

The page you wrote, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Brasília International Airport

The page you wrote, Brasília International Airport, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Island of stability

The page you wrote, Island of stability, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion Chromosomal inversion

See the Talk page. Gotanda (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Racepacket, I highly recommend that you stop creating new articles while that AN thread is open. From the looks of things, you have quite a few articles up for QD. Now would be a very good time to look back over your older creations and simplify them. Osiris (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to feel pressured to address the QD issues, you might move the articles back to your userspace and let them be deleted from article space. That way, there won't be so much unresolved business for either you or others. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) Ask for them to be moved back to userspace, then you can do it in your own time. Otherwise, they're likely to be deleted, because the "translations" aren't thorough, and there are a lot of them. This is the thing DJsasso is getting at. Just changing a few words and adding links on others isn't going to cut it. You need to take your time on this, or you're likely to lose the privilege of creating new pages. Osiris (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You're experienced enough to know that an attack against another person of this sort, whether they edit here or not, is not appropriate. Please use more neutral terms should you feel the need to further clarify your enwiki block in 24 hours. sonia♫ 02:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Racepacket (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

Sonia's block is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. My comments involved articles submitted for GA review by Sonia's friend. When several reviewers did not pass the friend's articles as GA, the friend went to great lengths to have her close friend of the opposite gender perfunctorally pass the articles as GA. (The GA was demoted by the community.) All of this is a matter of public record on En Wikipedia and completely irrelvant to the matter being discussed here. The fact that Gotanda would use all of this as his argument is very inappropriate. Since I did not name or specifically identify the man-woman pair it is not a "personal attack". Sonia is out-of-bound taking any administrative action on this matter, and the block should be reviewed by a uninvolved administrator. Many thanks,

Decline reason:

In context, what you were insinuating was quite obvious, and quite out of line (and the specific allegations you made are not "a matter of public record", contrary to your argument. I thus see no rationale for overturning this block. Kansan (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block has been extended to indef per your one-strike situation for directly doing exactly what you were banned for and restricted from doing on en. This is not related to your lack of simplification although that doesn't help. This is strictly related to your gross attack in your edit summary. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth repealing the block yet? It's been a long time. DJDunsie (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. It's well past the one year mark for this user's ban on En, but not repealed, so no evidence of changed behavior. In fact, ongoing sockpuppetry investigations and IP blocks over at En don't look promising. Is there any particular reason to ask for repeal at this time? Gotanda (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry articles. But don't worry. The block was required. DJDunsie (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the addition of even more copy-pasted, complex chemistry articles is actually a plus for the wiki, but even if some people do, I prefer to see some change in behavior on the part of the blocked editor. A demonstrated ability to understand and work well with other editors seems to me to be the best possible reason to unblock an editor. I don't see that at all. Gotanda (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. DJDunsie (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Weekend

IMO, your contributions at Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend can be characterized as helping to build an epistemic community. You already know this, of course; but your good intentions and success deserve acknowledgment.--Horeki (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to help improve Simple Wikipedia. Good luck in your future endeavors! --B music ian 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Racepacket (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

A year has gone by, and I continue to make constructive contributions to the Wikimedia Movement in planning and executing Wikimania and in my local chapter. I apologize for leaving an intemperate edit summary and I believe that I can edit here in good faith with decorum and civility. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Per discussions lasting 10 days there has been no community consensus to remove your block. As such I am reviewing this request and leaving the block in place for now. You may wish to look at the community discussion as Mh7kJ has linked for further information. I suggest more work at en and some more time before another request. Regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, this is being discussed. -Mh7kJ (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest thing to an unblock that I have ever seen that was not an unblock. I do not know what you did but if you could link me to which project you have been helping at I will look at what you have done for it and if I see fit I will add to the 'support unblock' crowd here. MIVP - (Can I Help?) 20:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Racepacket (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

It has now been two months, and I wish to renew my unblock request. I continue to make constructive contributions to the Wikimedia Movement, and wish to return as an editor in good standing at this project. My contribution to my local chapter serviing on its Board, as an elected officer, and in planning and executing Wikimania as well as my other work have been performed with a positive reception and civility. I believe that I can edit here in good faith with decorum and civility. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately there has been no consensus to unblock. Please refer to ST. You are still free to make another request for unblock in the future, however. -- Chenzw Talk 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous unblock discussion, several editors voiced concern over the lack of verifiable evidence to show your contributions to the Wikimedia Movement. It will be immensely helpful if you are able to provide evidence of your work in your local chapter and in Wikimania (along with dates). I strongly urge you to get that done. That being said, I will post your unblock request to ST, and will update the ST discussion as necessary. Chenzw Talk 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that many of the technical articles that I created were reviewed by another editor and declared "simple" before I moved them into article space. Many technical articles involve technical terms with multi-sylable words. So, our experiments with difficulty sores showed that word length drove up the reading scores, even when the sentence structure was very simple. I would simplify the article and then bring it over. One of my critics would then compare my first simplified version against my final simplified version and claim that there had not been many changes. However, such comparisons are misleading because they did not take into account the changes made before saving the first version. Again, all articles are the product of consensus, so if anyone can think of a simpler way to express an idea, they are welcomed. I do not view simplification as a ego battle. I always welcomed the input of other editors. Our mutual goal is to have good, simple articles that help readers. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly skeptical of this request, especially since you were blocked at enwiki in January for socking and continuing similar behavior that got you blocked in the first place. --Rs chen 7754 09:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Rschen's statement above, I have looked at those blocks. From what I can see, there are people in Australia who believe that anyone anywhere in the United States using an IP address that is not my IP address who dares question false claims that the game of Netball is played in the Summer Olympics must be my sock. There has been no effort to perform a checkuser study which would see if those actions with my IP address. So, Rschen7754 is incorrect. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Racepacket (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

It has now been 18 months. I continue to offer my technical background, experience of wikimarkup langauge, and a spirit of good will to build the Simple English Wikipedia. Not that the dispute on EN Wikipedia has any relevance to my block here, but two of the sysops involved in the dispute over there have been desysoped, and one was admonished. Otherwise I continue to participate in my local chapter and work to advance the open access to knowledge movement. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Racepacket (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have closed the appeal discussion as unsuccessful. As I said would probably happen, the community has decided that you can make no further appeals until one year has passed after this timestamp. -- Osiris (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you want to do this again? You've made the community discuss your situation twice in just the past seven months; this would be the third time. It doesn't look like anything is different this time: we don't have any verification about your activities elsewhere and you've got yet another block to your name on enwiki since your last appeal. If you really want to go ahead with another, I'm going to request that, should it fail, we set an interval until another appeal can be made (probably six months). Osiris (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment, I have gone to EN and see that there was another block for an IP address identified as "Road Runner commercial customers out of the New York City, NY and Syracuse, NY RDCs." I do not live in New York and I am not a Road Runner customer, so that block does not apply to me or my IP address. (I trust that it is accidental, but somehow the two people commenting there are misinterpreting the WHOIS data giving the location of the IP address with the location of the company's administrative offices.) I walked away from EN a long time ago. You have complete independent verification about my activities by two SE administrators (Chenzw and Barras on April 23), so that issue from February was put to rest. I believe that 18 months is more than enough time to put the events behind us. Many thanks for your careful consideration of this matter. Racepacket (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll post this to Simple talk. If you want to reply to any of the comments made, just put them here and someone will copy them over. Best of luck, Osiris (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: To Macdonald-ross, I would note that the articles that were later found to be "too complex" were reviewed and cleared by another editor as "simple" before moving into article space. I have always been open to correction and instruction. Nor was it the case of my articles been on "too technical" topics. I would encourage you to compare my deleted version of Island of stability with the current version. Many of the deleted articles were added during the Big Airport Weekend on airports. Those articles involved simple English prose, but included data in tables or lists that drove up the simplification ratings. Similarly, because the chemistry articles included long technical terms, their ratings when up. In many cases, the article topic came from a "Vital article" list or the Translation of the week.

To Curtaintoad, I ask you to revisit the issue that drew your comment. One reason given during the last two unblock discussion was that certain IP addresses on EN were blocked for expressing views (similar to my own) that the sport of netball is not an "Olympic sport" played in the Summer Olympic Games. (The International Olympic Committee and international press agree on this fact.) These IP addresses are located across the United States. So, whenever an IP address tries to correct an article that claims that netball is played in the Olympics, the location of the IP is misdiscribed as my location, no Checkuser study is conducted, and that false assumption is used to argue against my return to Simple.

Again, I have made my request in good faith, and I trust that it will be considered on that basis. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I will get back to you later, before the appeal is over. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 08:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Bluegoblin7, I have worked well with other editors on several of the Big Weekend projects, new changes patrol, and with various mentors who reviewed by individual articles before they were moved into main article space. I continue to be open to advice and correction on the simplification process. The block at issue here was for an intemperate remark in an edit summary. Usually, such blocks can be undone by a single admin at the end of the specified period, but the blocking admin said that it would be "subject to community discussion", so we are here again after the prior two discussions ended with "no consensus." Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Osiris, please correct the closing statement from "ban" to "block" to reflect the original actions. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the wording is actually correct. This is an indefinite block which no administrator has lifted and of which the community has expressed on at least one occasion the decision to not unblock. Thus, you are considered de facto banned. Chenzw Talk 14:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original action was a "block":

Summary: Racepacket blocked indef (but not community banned) for violating his one-strike. The block may be overturned following further community discussion. I would like to point out that the user's ArbCom enforced block on EN ends in June 2012, so that may also be a suitable time for us to review this block. Chenzw Talk 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)WP:AN

Instead of raising it in June 2012, I waited until February 2013, where the vote was a "no consensus" 5-5 vote, with a straw-man reason that I had failed to document my role in my local chapter. I then supplied the requested documentation, and the matter was brought back on April 2013. That discussion was closed with:

Result: No consensus. This unblock request is denied with no prejudice against a future request, unless otherwise determined by consensus in the future. Chenzw Talk 14:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[4]

Again, the argument in that vote was that there were problems at EN where other IP editors trying to correct the same hoax article that I had earlier tried to correct, but that no check user study had been run, and in at least once case the IP address was in New York but the complaining editor had misread the WHOIS as Virginia. Again, the EN stuff is irrelevant to Simple, and should not be considered. So, given all of these straw-men discussions which were systematically shown to be without merit, it all comes back to the original action which was a "block" and not a "ban". The choice of words make a big difference to me in real life. Many thanks for your consideration. Racepacket (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is speeches like this that are showing people you just don't get it you know. Regardless of your own opinions on if something was without merit or was a straw man or any other reason. A ban is a block that was supported by the community. It has been supported on a number of occasions as such. We could easily put a request out there to determine if the community considers it a ban or not but that would be wasting more community time and I am sure you wouldn't want to test the patience of the community further would you? -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I didn't use the word "ban" in my closing statement. It's up the top, in the right-hand corner. None of the other comments I made should be taken as part of the closing decision or as a declaration of anything. Osiris (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Request reason(s):
It has now been 42 months. I continue to offer my technical background, experience of wikimarkup langauge, and a spirit of good will to build the Simple English Wikipedia. I continue to participate in my local WMF chapter and work to advance the open access to knowledge movement. For example, I could help SE adapt to Lua templates. Thank you in advance for your consideration.Racepacket (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
It appears that there is a consensus to allow you to return. But with that being said, it is with a good deal of restrictions. The community has expressed that you be on a one strike type guideline should you violate any of our rules you will be immediately blocked again. I encourage you to reach out to a mentor such as Peterdownunder, and consult with him before making changes or even just asking general advise; you have been gone from simple due to this ban for some time, it will be best if you mentor with another user until such time you and the mentor believe you are ready to go at things solo. Best of luck. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I started a discussion on WP:ST as this is probably nothing that one admin will decide alone. -Barras talk 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Blue Rasberry has posted the following questions to me. Here are my answers:

Why were you blocked? - I was blocked for posting an intemperate remark particularly on an edit summary, which was subsequently oversighted.
What are you willing to do to lower the likelihood of anyone suggesting a block for you again? -I had added new articles in technical and scientific subjects, from the translation of the week and from the list of "vital articles." Each article was simplified on a user page, approved by my mentor and only then copied into article space. My mentor and I both know that the reading score of the simplified articles were high because chemical terms have words with many syllables. All of the reading scores use the length of each word or the number of syllables as a factor, but in accurate scientific articles, there is no substitute from using the proper terms. I have received many emails of encouragement since I was blocked asking me to return, and they have suggested that I stay away from scientific articles. I can work on converting templates to Lua instead. I also would propose that SE tap into Wikidata. In this way, if some Wikidata information is updated (such as the population of a nation), SE will stay up to date as well.
Under what circumstances would you find yourself in similar circumstances to those in which you were blocked? - What provoked the intemperate remark was a personal attack upon me and someone luring me into discussing the one editor subject to an interaction ban from another wiki. I realize now that some people on Wikipedia try to play tricks, and I will not make that mistake again. If someone makes an unfair personal attack on me or asks me a specific question about that one editor, I will walk away.
What nice things can you say regarding the people who participated in previous discussions about your block? - Most of the people have been very nice to me and have sent me encouraging emails asking me to apply again. One time, the final vote was 5 to 3, which was very close.
What apology, if any, are you willing to offer to anyone? - I have previously apologized for anyone being offended by the edit summary. Although what I have said is true, it is not good to say it on the internet.
What do you think should happen when the community reviews block requests like this one? - The blocking administrator said that the unblock should be subject to a community discussion. If he had not done that, then any administrator could just unblock without taking everyone's time. It was a "block" and not a "community ban." On English Wikipedia, there is a "standard offer" "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." I think that SE should have a similar policy. The problem with the extensive community discussion is that most people forgot the reason for the original block. Instead of moving forward, people can get caught up in an argument over the reason for the block and then say "You should not come back because you don't understand why you were blocked."

Thank you for copying my answers back to the questions. Racepacket (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion, both with support and oppose. I appreciate hearing your ideas and concerns. I will try to keep things simple. Racepacket (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, plus a question about an article...

I am not active on Simple English (in fact this is my very first edit I made anywhere in Simple English), I see that you got unblocked. It's clear that you are definitely on a short leash. I advise you to listen closely, and start in small steps. From what I read, the Simple English editor community is fairly small, and they seem to dislike "excessive" editing, which is understandable.
With that in mind, can you look at the article on carbon, specifically in the "Why it is important" section? One statement in particular bothers me: "Also, Carbon is the only element that can form long chain-shaped molecules". I am no expert in chemistry, but I feel it is not quite accurate. Feel free to review and correct that if needed. That would be a good start for you....smile. I wish you good luck! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]