User talk:Mark Miller/Archive 2

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech

Hello, Thank you for the notification, and I appreciate the suggestions for improvement. Most of my additions to the article were made in a hurried effort to show notability and prevent deletion. A vigorous AfD debate may not be the best time to write a good article. Now that some time has passed, I will return to the article and do my best to improve it in accordance with your assessment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Melting Man

Hey Amadscientist. I just wanted to let you know I've requested a GAR for your review of The Incredible Melting Man. Feel free to weigh in. I mean no offense to you personally, and I specifically stated at the GAR that I believe your review was in good faith, but I also feel that the problems with the article were not so insurmountable that they could not have been worked out within the GAN itself. Also, I wanted to let you know that quick-fails are not permitted in the GA drive, so you cannot list "The Incredible Melting Man" as one of your reviews. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 17:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of having two separate conversations in two venues, I've responded at the GAR. However, I did want to point you to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review an article, which states: "If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed (as described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations) without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues. Some reviewers refer to this as "quick-failing"." Thus, as defined in Wikipedia policies, your review was a quick fail. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calakmul GA review

Hi, many thanks for the review of Calakmul. I've made sure all the info in the intro is also in the main article body, ahve moved the cites and have gone through the photos as suggested. Please let me know if any further work is necessary. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for the constructive review of Calakmul. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Dunhuang Project

I've nominated the IDP logo for deletion on Commons. Please go to Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:International_Dunhuang_Project_logo.jpg if you are interested in voicing your opinion. I have also been adding some more references from 3rd party sources to the article in order to reduce its reliance on the IDP as a source. However, due to the nature of the project there are many facts about the IDP and its activities that can only be sourced to the IDP website or the IDP Newsletter, and cannot be verified from 3rd party sources. Nevertheless, I feel that the article is now not much more reliant on the IDP as a source than, say, the British Library article (a recent GA) is reliant on the British Library as a source. It would be very helpful for me if you could point out any specific areas of perceived bias or problematic sourcing that you think I should address. BabelStone (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: How to withdraw a nomination for deletion?

I don't see a recent request for deletion/discussion in your history (so I can't comment specifically on the type of deletion you requested ie image, article, miscellany, template, etc). In most cases all you need to do is add a comment that you are withdrawing and why. If it is a non-controversial withdrawal, an admin may speedy close the request --Trödel 15:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've done all you need to. --Trödel 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I find your accusation of copyright infringement particularly hurtful. Every addition that I made to the article was cleared by an independent third party before I posted it into article space, and I was composing additional materials when I saw your failure notice. As I understand your concern, the sentence in the article:

Among the outstanding items is Victorious Youth, one of few life-size Greek bronze statues to have survived to modern times.

infringes:

Found in the sea in international waters, this statue is one of the few life-size Greek bronzes to have survived; as such, it provides much information on the technology of ancient bronze casting.

As I explained, the Wikipedia sentence has "modern times" and does not have a "the". How would you rephrase it?

I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your copyright accusation, because I believe that I have been very careful to avoid any inadvertent copying. If you agree, please remove your conclusion from the talk page.

As for your other concerns, I can understand that people read and apply the GA criteria differently, so I don't take offense at your failing the article. I will note my counterviews on the review page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it likely that your comment will be read as an accusation that we have not been complying with the terms of my return? Racepacket (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't change my opinion based on what is possible. I have no idea what your previous problems were, only what concerns I had on the article at that time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melting Man GAR

Hi Amadscientist. I was wondering whether you had seen, or would be willing to review, the changes I've made at The Incredible Melting Man and the GAR discussion based on them. I've made several changes based on the comments bu you and Geometry guy (talk · contribs) and he has stated they are indeed strong improvements and is in the process of going through the article a second time. As the original GA reviewer, any thoughts would be appreciated. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to look at this? — Hun ter Ka hn 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For reviewing 5 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Good job! –MuZemike 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Project collaboration

Hello! You are invited to participate in the Theatre Project's Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500 hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help!
Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

.--Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trevor White (British stage actor)

The article Trevor White (British stage actor) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. N^oformation ^Talk 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Kingdom

No problem. I see you have made some useful changes too!Urg writer (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate quick decline The Rocky Horror Picture Show re

How about you calm down instead? Looking through the GA criteria again, I admit that it was wrong of me to quick-fail the article. I just thought the problems it had would take more than seven days to mend, but obviously, that was just my opinion and I realize now that it was somewhat foolish of me to dismiss it that hastily. So for that, I'm sorry, but remember that we all make mistakes sometimes; I mean, you made at least twelve mistakes in the article, so me making ONE mistake shouldn't be THAT big of a deal. Queenieacoustic (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which you did. Also, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources. Queenieacoustic (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you didn't read the link I provided, here is an excerpt:

"...books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth."

Here is an excerpt from WP:The answer to life, the universe, and everything that I also found fitting:

"Reliable sources

Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable."

Granted, this is an essay and not a policy or guideline, but ask any other user and see what they have to say about it.

In short, IMDB and RHPS Official Fan Site are not considered reliable, and as long as they're used as sources in your article, it will never reach GA status.

I rest my case. Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I shouldn't have quick-failed it. That was wrong of me. Also, this is my first ever review of a film article, since I usually only review episode articles, so I'm sorry that it got a bit sloppy. I'll put this fight to rest by saying good luck on getting it to GA, and good luck in the future. :) Queenieacoustic (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Film

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Film}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for May has been published. June's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright of images on Human Centipede article

Hi. I've replied to your comments on the article's talk page. If you could elaborate on how the images on this article fail copyright I'd very much appreciate it, because I'm pretty sure they don't. Regards Coolug (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see that you are blocked from editing at the moment, so I don't expect a reply, however, in case you are still keeping an eye on your talk page I should let you know that since your comments on my talk page were with regard to this article, I copied and pasted them over to the article talk page. Should you be unblocked your comments would be very much welcome. However, the general consensus at the moment seems to be that there isn't actually any problem with these images.

Anyway, I hope you are able to resolve your issues soon. cya Coolug (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick review

In case it is not on your watch-list, I just left the following reply at the GA review of the Stanley Kubrick article.

A few Notes

Mad Scientist. Your explanation of the images problem here is much more cogent and clear than your note at the AfD discussion of the Lolita image, so excuse my having gotten snappy with you over there.

The Peter Sellers images are free & public domain, and are there because he plays three radically different roles in the one film & Sellers was one of only two actors that Kubrick allowed to improvise dialogue and have a lot of creative input into his character. If that's still a problem, let me know. The text of the article does indeed discuss the "Kubrick Stare" and has recently been amended to clarify who else besides Ebert has commented it (the phrase was coined by Kubrick's camera-man- this is now in the article.)(and is appropriately referenced).

That said, I made quite a bit of effort to make sure these images were WP:NFCC compliant, but evidently not enough, and I may not understand the issues clearly. I admit that the rationales are skimpy. Let's see if they can be improved. Thanks for going through process & peer review and not just deleting images willy-nilly.

I didn't upload the Look magazine images, and have less to say about their status. I didn't even check to see if they were non-free or not. There may be a better choice of such a magazine photo than the one currently used.

I have two minutes left on this computer in a public library, and have also run out (for now) of things to say. I will later try to post here a general sketch of what I think is the broad rationale of each of the images.

Believe me, there are dozens and dozens of images I have looked at and not put here because I felt they were obviously not at all complaint with WP:NFCC and could be possibly construed to add to the reader's understanding. All the ones I put here, I believed they did even if the explanation does not seem fully adequate.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible legal threat regarding film articles.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for "making legal threats". Specifically, for the statement of encouraging friends not to discuss any problem they have and just take legal action.[19] My intention was not to threaten or to play games. I have no legal action pending, nor do any of my friends, nor do we have any current issues. The wording was very bad and the statement should never been made. If any such statement were justified (and frankly I am clearly to close to make that judgement call) it should have been a statement that I would encourage my friends to use the Wikipedia procedures put in place for this very thing to rectify issues they may have. Wikipedia does make it clear on upload pages all information need to do so. I feel the block was a course of action for a borderline infraction, a serious borderline infraction but not an actual threat to take any real action against Wikipedia or any of it's members. This is serious enough that I must admit the foolishness of it and stress that this type of stupidity on my part will not occur again.

I entered the discussion on the MOS talk page to see how improvements could be made to better reflect current policy. I found the discussion extremely aggravating and felt that I was being personally attacked by having posts and comments altered by others, but one bad turn does NOT deserve another. I feel a level of shame on my part for my obvious failure to communicate better and remain civil in the discussion even when faced with incivility myself. User:Erik was extremely helpful, linking to an Rfc that showed consensus for the article itself being the critical commentary needed to justify the poster in the info box of the article and continued to discuss the issues themselves as the debate continued. I noted in the discussion that he made the point and attempted to discuss ways to improve the MOS to reflect that consensus more precisely as well as issues pertaining to fair use rational and market value. It would have been better to simply keep my replies to his comments as they seemed logical and well thought out. Having been through talk page discussions that deteriorate for various reasons in the past, I should have done what I normally would do, which is to step back, cool down and take a wiki break. I did not. I do not live in Hollywood and made no mention of the city in my ill thought out statement. I do not collect posters and I am not connected to any studio in any way. My concerns are not the market value of posters for retail sale but the artwork of the artist and the copyright of the owners and their right to benefit from it.

The removal of my article from the project was project related and specifically due to my feeling that the project itself was adding to many of the problems on the page. I had removed it from Project film over similar issues before concerning the differences in MOS of the project and the rest of Wikipedia MOS guide lines that I felt conflicted with each other. I have been working on the article heavily lately to remove references that I now understand cannot be used and to remove MOS related issues (which cut the article down to nearly half the size). An image I uploaded under Fair use for the article has shown up on a number of websites against both copyright law and fair use policy spelled out in the license I used. It was a screen capture of a precise moment in the film and file size that could clearly be seen to be a duplicate of the image.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] I nominated it for speedy deletion based on the fact that it did indeed take the market value of the image to be licensed by the copyright holder in this specific instance. The experience may have colored my judgement. Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unambiguous withdrawal of the legal threat you made that you will tell others to sue Wikipedia or its contributors. The other matters you discuss in your request, related to MOS etc., are irrelevant to the reason for your block. Sandstein 05:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am afraid I don't quite understand the first statement in the decline. I respect the decision regardless, but don't understand what is meant by "This is not an unambiguous withdrawal". How exactly should it be made to be unambiguous? The first paragraph goes into all the detail of the action and contains the diff to direct to the statement. I retracted the statement in no uncertain terms by stating that I should not have said it, and what I should have said if anything at all. I stated I have no legal action, nor do any of my friends. While I didn't want to make the request too long or too short I wanted to be sure and address everything brought up in the ANI that was carried out while I was asleep. The decline does state that the "other matters are irrelevant". If so...why were they brought up at the ANI?. Also with respect, the statement I made never stated anything about telling anyone to sue Wikipedia. That is an assumption on the part of the reviewer and is incorrect. I simply said "Legal action" which could be a simple cease and desist letter or other action not pertaining to an actual suit.

At any rate thank you for taking a moment to review.

Mark.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nevertheless, even a cease and desist letter could be interpreted as a legal threat. If I unblock you, will your first action be to strike the "offending" part of your comment? Pedro : Chat 06:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would strike out the offending comments (using the <s></s>) as my first edit...yes. I feel that is appropriate. Not removing them, but striking them out, would still show my words and show that I had retracted it without hiding it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock a second time, immediately after the first review, as the initial administrative reviewer overstated my actual comment which leads me to believe it is possible there was a mistake in the review of my first unblock request. As a Wikipedia editor I know that the statement I made originally was bad enough but, I did not make the statement the reviewer has posted in their review. Also, the ANI went into a good deal of detail about the issue and I thought, in reading it, that I had been asked to address those stated issues and comments in the unblock request. I shall attempt to restate the request as clearly and as precisely as I can.

I, Amadscientist, understand that a threat of any legal action is not within the accepted behavior of Wikipedia editors. I understand what I did can and may create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation that clearly goes against, both the spirit and the principles of Wikipedia. I do feel that the actual statement, while serious, does not require, nor should entail an indefinite block as I did not say what was stated in the first review and believe the statement was only borderline as I made no direct threat about any specific issue or to any specific member or image/article. I do admit it was uncalled for and if reinstated, I commit to behavior that follows, not only the guidelines of Wiki but, but the spirit of continued civility and cooperation towards consensus of all.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per your confirmation that the legal threat will be struck Pedro : Chat 08:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When unblock takes effect and editing privileges are resumed I will make the retraction with strikeout before any other contributions or work.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to edit now; there was an autoblock placed on your account. If you attempted to edit while you were blocked, that would have triggered it, but there are other possibilities. Danger (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I should have removed the autoblock myself - thatnk you Danger for dealing with that, and thank you Amadscientist for striking the remark. Pedro : Chat 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pedro, no problem. I apologize to the administrators for having to deal with the issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Getty Foundation

I regret any misunderstanding created by my expression of empathy. It certainly was not intended as an "accusation." Whatever you can do to expedite completion of the review would be appreciated due to circumstances beyond our control. Thank you for your consideration. Racepacket (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate and uncivil to suggest that another member may be blocked in a casual manner, especially when requesting that member do you a favor. It may also amount to attempting manipulation of the review and reviewer by making request for speed. It is best not to make comment or question directly on the reviewers page in this manner. This reviewer has paused the review.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing me not you, and there was no "attempting manipulation of the review." I have reviewed over 100 GA nominations, and I am not aware of any prohibition on leaving messages on the reviewer's talk page. I am available now to resolve any open issues remaining on the review, and do appreciate the time you have devoted to it. Racepacket (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no prohibitions on leaving comments on the reviewers page however, the message you left was inappropriate. If you were referring to "only" you, you would not have mentioned "[My] own problems with the bureaucracy" or "before either one of us can no longer edit". You should also be aware that: When you have nominated an article, the only way for it to pass is for a reviewer to look over the article and make sure that it complies with the GA criteria and meets other MoS guidelines such as an adequate lead, correct grammar, and reliable sourcing. It would be inappropriate for me to quick decline at this time since you have made a request for speedy review. Such action would appear to be retaliation, and quick pass would look to be rubber stamping. There are issues on the page that mean the review simply cannot be done within your requested time frame and I do feel such requests are inappropriate to leave on a reviewers talk page. References of newspaper articles that are not given specified page number as well as the reference not being available online to check means that this reviewer must research the issue and locate the article through library microfilm or direct request of the publisher for the information and it is far to late to do this week.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that the member may be attempting to manipulate the review and myself as reviewer and may also be attempting to manipulate or shop for a GA on another.[1] He has made, myself and at least one other reviewer uncomfortable.[2] For this reason I have stepped back from the situation and have placed the article back to be reviewed. He then went to the article and changed the nomination to reflect his name which leads me to believe he is attempting to collect GA ratings as trophies even when he is not necessarily the main contributor.[3]

How about AGF? The April edits to Getty Foundation were first made on a user subpage, then reviewed for possible copyright infringement or inadvertent close paraphrasing with an independent third party, and then copied into article space. I was trying to correct the template, as I did not think that you would withdraw as reviewer and nominate the article as the same time. I can assure you that I have spent a lot of time on the Getty Foundation article as well as the rest of the Getty family of articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer interested and have washed my hands of the situation. Should the project, admin or arbitration committee have questions I will respond but I see your comments as little more than baiting me into your situation ~~and digging a deeper hole for yourself.~~ Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor point of fact, there is no "trophy" to be collected for nominating an article. The nominator is not a special position, and nobody gets "credit" for it. Anybody can nominate any article s/he believes meets the criteria—even drive-by, unregistered users who never edit Wikipedia again. It takes five seconds. It is not an action worth giving out trophies for.

In the future, whenever you have a failed review, you might consider the advantages of taking it off your watchlist and ignoring the article. It's okay to re-nominate articles. In fact, it is desirable for articles to be re-nominated, especially if they have improved in the meantime. If few changes have been made, and the problems are as significant as you believe them to be, then the next reviewer will agree with you, and perhaps that reviewer will have better success explaining the problems to the editors at the article. If the next reviewer passes it, then rather than proving the next reviewer is too lax, it could suggest that you have been too stringent. It's always good to think about WP:What the Good article criteria are not and make sure you're not setting the bar too high, before accusing someone else of setting the bar too low.

Finally, you might like to know about the Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. The absence of a URL doesn't conclusively prove that the newspaper's contents aren't available online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but frankly I don't agree. Trophy collecting is something he seems to be doing by having to be the one nominating the page. To use your logic sir, he would not have needed to change the nomination to his name. It appears he has a collection list of articles he is claiming to have taken to GA, but upon inspection it is clear many of them had been there before he added a few references here and there. There is also the fact that he has been taking specific subject articles, namely Getty, to review and arguing to a point of distraction in an uncivil and aggressive manner. Of course there are no "prizes" but that doesn't mean people don't try and use the GA nomination in that way. I see it all the time....but for the most part they are the ones who made the major contribution to get the article to that point. It's also always best to look into the situation before making the claim that I accused anyone of anything. I stated the facts as I see them. Was he argumentative in review? I believe so. Was he even even perhaps a little belligerent? I think so. Did he attempt to get reviewers to speed up or request time limits on reviews. Yes, he absolutely did. Are you completely wrong? I can't make that judgement. As editors we don't know his thought process only what actions he takes and from everything I have seen, I know I have not been too far off base or just grasping at straws. I have never interacted with you and don't know why you felt compelled to come her and make these statements but I think your heart is definitely in the right place while I cannot say the same for him. Am I capable of making mistakes? Sure. But, if we start down that road I at least know i made a good faith attempt to review his article only to be accused of a bad faith review and I don't feel that I, as an editor on Wikipedia deserved to be dragged through the mud by this member. Reviews can be put on hold for up to 7 days and I know one thing for certain...he doesn't want to wait, nor does he agree with nearly anything I contribute. Therefore i simply ask to be left out of his issues. I do however, appreciate and acknowledge your input and suggestions especially the link to the online archives, but as reviewers we are not obligated to agree with the assessment from the nominator or the all encompassing argument that "You don't know what your talking about", or "You're just incorrect". To me it shows a lack of cooperation on his part and refuses to acknowledge wrong or mistakes or that there are any issues to deal with. When Wiki makes self GA ratings possible it may be a different situation....and maybe that is the answer...as it doesn't appear that it would be that far from how things end up now with the process being manipulated to such a degree. But that is not an issue with GA nominations sir, that's an issue with individuals. Thank you! I appreciate your time and effort but I am still not going to be interacting with the member or reviewing any of his articles. I have am stepping away from the reviews for a bit. There seems to a sufficient amount of people to do it and I can resume contributing to articles that need attention. Have a good evening and be well! Peace, Mark,--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...and, I don't watch any articles anymore. My watch list stopped functioning (or I simply forgot how the darn thing works) long ago and I never bothered to check why. I don't wish to "follow" articles that I either adopt or contribute to....for the exact reason you spoke of. It can be very aggravating....but really almost any article can be that way if people can't seem to find a way to get past things. I find a lengthy stay away from that person leads to quicker mending of fences....and I believe good fences make good neighbors. Thanks again!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a "ma'am", not a "sir". I decided to leave a message for you after reading your complaint at WT:GAN#Shopping_for_GA.3F, since it seemed to me that you were making a mountain out of a molehill: Renominations are desirable, and your fellow editors are generally smart enough to notice manipulative behavior without needing someone to carry on about it in public. Also, I really don't want our fellow editors to decide that you've got an WP:OWNership problem of the "If I don't pass it, then ain't nobody allowed to pass it" sort. I think your frustrated, uncollegial comments around this review might well lead some to conclude that the problem is named "Amadscientist" rather than "Racepacket" this time, and I am convinced that this is not your goal. This is why I recommend that you follow the best practice of completely ignoring future nominations of articles you have previously failed.

As a minor point of fact, articles can be put on hold for any length of time, not just seven days. We've currently got 24 reviews whose holds have exceeded seven days. That's more than a quarter of the reviews currently underway.

Racepacket has a rational motivation behind trying to wrap these reviews up: ArbCom have approved a one-year site ban for him, and his account could get blocked at literally any moment. Since some reviewers don't know how to cope if other editors aren't available to fix any problems they identify, his attempts to expedite these reviews is actually responsible and helpful, rather than "wrong" and "manipulative". You may be happy to know that the motion to close already has enough net votes to begin implementation, so you won't have to do anything to keep your repeated (but as-yet unfulfilled) promise to avoid him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this pretty insulting. I am NOT happy to see any member be blocked, nor is it any of my business or your place to mention it as if it would please me. Those are his issues and as rational as it may be...we don't have to speed things up for him. Your minor point of fact is already understood but thank you Ma'am. Your claim of "carry[ing] on about it in public" seems to mean you do not encourage discussion of issues within the project. It is noted. Your are also incorrect about a repeated (but as-yet unfulfilled) promise to avoid him. I have not interacted with him as was what my statement. You are inaccurate. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]