| Revision as of 07:26, 3 January 2011 editImzadi1979 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors151,566 edits withdrawing second revew← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:50, 3 January 2011 edit undoRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits on holdNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| The proper approach is to request a second opinion if you disagree with the review, not to start a review. ] does not explain your conduct. | The proper approach is to request a second opinion if you disagree with the review, not to start a review. ] does not explain your conduct. | ||
| :Then I shall withdraw this review as well. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" >'''] ] ]'''</span> 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | :Then I shall withdraw this review as well. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" >'''] ] ]'''</span> 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Misplaced Pages to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.] (]) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:50, 3 January 2011
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC) The proper approach is to request a second opinion if you disagree with the review, not to start a review. WP:IAR does not explain your conduct.
- Then I shall withdraw this review as well. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Misplaced Pages to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)