|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, fr33kman 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have left an extended response for you on the Diels-Alder talk page - --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi there! Some probably useful things to know about DYK:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should be vertical splited helm/rudder. How to simplify? :D --WizardOfOz (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
DJDunsie (talk · changes) 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you have to have a great knowledge of chemistry to become part of WikiProject Chemistry? DJDunsie (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
Not on my user talk page. Discussion of articles should go on the article Talk pages. Gotanda (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 fr33kman 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for thinking of me. I is quite an honor. Racepacket (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you have been working really hard and it is about time you received an award! :) DJDunsie (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
...Simplify things before you save. When you added that information to Public transport, a lot of it was complex. Orashmatash 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
See Chemical reactivity. And, yes, I did leave a review on the talk page. Gotanda (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I asked a question about your editing restrictions and made a request. Gotanda (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Racepacket. Hate to be a burden, but could you please elaborate on your comment here? Cheers, Orashmatash 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
Please see my concerns about your recent additions at Talk:Pennsylvania State University. Only (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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? -Orashmatash- 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
Hello Racepacket,
I have moved the page, as requested; without a redirect. --Eptalon (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
...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)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Keep up the good work :) Chenzw Talk 06:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
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, Goblin 16:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge!
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am airline pilot. And what about you? Best Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Patroller rights granted - --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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) |
Thank you for the kind words! Cirt (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not an easy subject. I do not know how best to echo and underscore the points you make here.
In other words,
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)
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)
![]() |
Racepacket has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, Chenzw Talk 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See the Talk page. Gotanda (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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]
My friend Blue Rasberry has posted the following questions to me. Here are my answers:
Thank you for copying my answers back to the questions. Racepacket (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)