Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Jim Croce's Don't mess around with Jim (or Slim)

You may enjoy and even benefit from this song.

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit in the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be promoting a hierarchical view of Wikipedia; this view of Wikipedia does not reflect reality. You, and I, and Malleus Fatuorum, and Newyorkbrad, and Courcelles, and (insert a whole bunch of random editors who aren't blocked here) are all editors with equal standing. It doesn't matter how many flags/bits you have (Wikipedia:Administrators), or how many FAs you have written or not written, or how many degrees you have, or old you are. Administrators have the right to enforce Wikipedia policy, but they are not "above" other editors in any other way. Malleus Fatuorum does not have any extra weight in a discussion; but neither do I, or you. The only reason that I brought up Malleus Fatuorum's flags was to clear away the misconception that he was familiar with deleted material, or as familiar as an administrator would be. It's sort of a silly proposition to argue about the suitability of deleted material when you don't know what the deleted material is. --Rschen7754 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I am asking you to think more before writing, that is all. Malleus, whatever faults he has, is very intelligent, educated, and disciplined, and unusually precise when he writes, as even his worst opponents will admit. I am not saying his is perfect or should be idolized or emulated in all things. Nonetheless, you should read what he writes with considerable care, and tonight you have not.
If I behave like an fool, then I deserve to feel like an fool. I trust that you want to behave intelligently and responsibly, and so avoid my mistakes.
When smart obsessive people stop discussing and begin arguing, they just waste time. Young men are particularly prone to engage in fruitless sparring. What is the point of arguing? Did you see how Byte28 and others have more productive discussions?
Go in peace,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You just don't get it, tonight. You don't know what you are talking about, and you are shooting off your mouth without thinking, despite repeated clarifications by Malleus and myself, and you should be happy that he's on good behavior with you. We can try again another day.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I have read what he wrote, but I simply don't agree. --Rschen7754 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope to disengage from this now, as I have a nasty operating systems assignment to finish. But I'd like to share a few thoughts. I am no longer a teenager (though I became an admin at the age of 15). I actually take a harder line on younger users than most users do who are my age. I fully believe that there are users with an age < 18 who should not be administrators due to maturity issues. I don't think I've ever interacted with Dylan620, and I'm not going to support or oppose his RFA. The concerns raised by many of the opposers, if true, are valid reasons to oppose and would not make him a good admin. That being said, an oppose solely based on age is inappropriate. If you're worried about legal ramifications, the way you're going about this is wrong. The proper place to discuss such a policy change is at WT:RFA, not here. Just as the proper place to change the notability guideline is not at WP:AFD. Agitating over and over on every underage RFA with a controversial viewpoint just alienates users. Not only users who are underage, but those who are overage as well. This isn't the way to build Wikipedia community. --Rschen7754 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with your assignment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

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

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

May 2011

Please do not be undo/rollback trigger-happy on the edits of other IP addresses. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 24.130.62.48 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. and also avoid pre-written templates when posting these warnings. At least have the dignity to type something more meaningful out.

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2011

Volume 4, Issue 2 • Spring 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates

Project reports for

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Rschen7754bot (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U Agreement

I have left a message that I "broke" the RFC/U agreement. Could you please explain what you had in mind? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You said that you would stay away from the road articles for 6 months. What do you call [1]? --Rschen7754 17:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an honest mistake. I thought you said that your project did not want the separate history articles. The article is within the scope of WP:WikiProject Maryland and WP:WikiProject United States History. Although the edit is also relevant to Maryland Route 200, I did not make the contribution there. In order to appease your concern, I will delete it. Next time, please come to me directly to resolve this issue. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
But meanwhile, this is still clearly a road article. You are supposed to stay away from road articles, regardless of whatever project they're tagged under. --Rschen7754 07:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles on most states' highways are dual-tagged for the state-level project as well as USRD and its applicable subprojects and task forces. Even if you hadn't consulted the tags on the talk page, the title alone (History of Maryland Route 200) should have been a clue that it was covered by your voluntary agreement. The article is clearly within the USRD scope which says that the project "maintains articles relating to roadways of national or regional significance in the United States" (emphasis added) so even if we as a project don't "want the separate history articles", they are still with in the scope of the project. Imzadi 1979 → 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. We're supposed to avoid each other outside of dispute resolution forums like ArbCom. Imzadi 1979 → 07:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is that I am very relaxed about the issue and am willing to defer to your interpretation and have deleted the edit. Feel free to come to me directly about any such concerns in the future. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:World52314

Why did you delete that user's talk page as a blatant hoax under the G3 criterion? Logan Talk Contributions 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't paying attention. :( --Rschen7754 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It happens to the best of us. ;) Logan Talk Contributions 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Thanks

For dealing with the impersonator, well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; unfortunately I've dealt with my share of those. --Rschen7754 08:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Redirection of US 48

Re [2], I am certainly ok with US 48 redirecting to another article. However, I'm not sure US-50 is the best redirect target, as although it was the next number for that piece of road, US-50 no longer extends to the SF bay area. Might not Interstate 580 (California) or Interstate 205 (California) be better, as those are the replacement freeways for the road once numbered US-48? Dave (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose... if you want to go ahead and move it, feel free; historical roads aren't my strength. :P --Rschen7754 07:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Contested proposed deletion: Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange, as I found a source that indicates that its design was recognized with a biennial award by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Although at the moment I can't find any reliable sources to corroborate this claim, I have also recognized the interchange in several movies, television shows, and commercials. I must admit that I'm curious as to what in your mind singled this particular article out of all the articles in Category:Road interchanges in California for prodding. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody uses this name. You can read my reasoning on the AFD, but I don't believe it's notable. There's a distinct lack of notability as compared to the other articles in the category; I've heard those names, but I've never heard this one. --Rschen7754 22:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
  2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
  3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
  4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Wikinic

Hello! The Los Angeles Wikinic is fast approaching, and we need intrepid volunteers to bring supplies and whatnot. I've posted a little info and a sign-up sheet at Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/4 so please let me confirm your attendance and sign up to bring something. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Articles for future highways

Greetings, the Province of Alberta, through legislation, has designated a future highway that has an alignment and an assigned number, but has yet to be constructed. Is it premature to create an article on such a highway? Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's enough reliable sources to write an article, then it's not premature. --Rschen7754 05:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
M-231 (Michigan highway) has had an article for a few years even though MDOT just this year finally started breaking ground for the bridge (and the bridge only) for the highway. Imzadi 1979 → 05:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys. The sources accumulated thus far include the legislation itself and maps produced by Alberta Transportation. Hwy43 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 75 in Florida

Can you tell me what part of WP:USRD/STDS the article Interstate 75 in Florida needs work on before the cleanup tag is removed? RJFJR (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lane configurations" and "Services" are both nonstandard sections and need to be refactored elsewhere or removed. --Rschen7754 04:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Both of those sections could be converted into prose and integrated into the Route description. The lanes stuff could be mentioned in the middle of the rest of the RD, and the services could be summarized in prose as a subsection of the RD, like the FAs M-28 (Michigan highway) or U.S. Route 131 do. Imzadi 1979 → 05:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I moved the weigh stations into the exits table, but I don't see how to change those lists into good prose. RJFJR (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Just merge it into the prose of the route description. --Rschen7754 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

User:Lewisistheone1991

Numerous people have left messages on Lewisistheone1991's talk page about his editing, none of whom he has responded to (myself included). Two weeks ago you gave him a very stern, but completely fair and warranted, final warning regarding his actions. Well, he's at it again. On July 22, he created the improperly named 2010-11 West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball team article (I've since redirected it), only to then create the properly named 2010–11 West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball team that same day. Essentially, he created identical/duplicate entries, even though he's been told and warned several times about such a practice, and even though he also is fully aware that hyphens should be redirected to the en dashes. Can you please temporarily block him, and tell him that blocks lengthen the more times they occur, and that to avoid any of this in the first place he needs to gain consensus and communicate with other editors? His unilateral editing completely goes against all that is Wikipedia. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. I hate to do that, but we're running out of options here. If he does respond before his block expires, I would be willing to consider an unblock. --Rschen7754 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. At first I was happy to see someone new taking on WikiProject College Basketball articles (we need to recruit!) but once I saw the kinds of editing he was doing, it became apparent that in the long run he's going to do more harm than good. I hope he finally says something to us. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting

Hi Rschen7754 - I'm happy to see you blocked Lewisistheone1991 again, he deserves it. However, he's back up to his old tricks via IP. You blocked Lewis on August 13th, and on August 16th 66.212.78.220 picked up right where Lewis left off. It's a very clear case of WP:DUCK. Can you block the IP for even longer than two weeks since not only is he disruptively editing, but also evading a block? Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed it's registered to Seattle Public Library. Perhaps indefinitely blocking this IP, with the message to it that they need to register an account to edit, would be in order. Otherwise, Lewis will always have the option of strolling over to his library to disrupt. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't indef IPs. I'll go ahead and block for a week though. --Rschen7754 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah didn't know that. Cool. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Jcttop

I take your protection of {{Jcttop}}, immediately after I raised a concern over its content in a debate in which you are involved, and in which we disagree, as an act of bad faith, and as an abuse of admin privileges. You now have the opportunity to reconsider that action. Kindly do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand behind my protection, and I'm sure that you know the proper place to appeal (WP:RPP). --Rschen7754 22:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
To add to this, it was under policy (WP:HRT), all the related templates in the suite are full-protected (such as {{Jctint}} and {{legendRJL}}), and there were concerns over editors making controversial changes to the templates and causing damage to a few thousand articles. Revert wars are not for templates. --Rschen7754 22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

RfC

I have so many reservations about the RfC / likely RfC process, I don't even know where to begin. Right now, I don't have much confidence in it. Nor do I have much headspace to devote to it. I'm particularly sorry that section 4 of the DRB got canned, since I'd genuinely like a better understanding of your rebuttal of the pro-arguments. I'd like more light but all I'm seeing in the dreg-ends of the current conversations is heat. I don't see how the RfC will get us any nearer a consensus position than any of the existing failed discussions, and would wish to see us do a great deal more preparatory work than perhaps is the plan, before such such a thing is launched. It's all very depressing.

If it goes ahead, will I respect the outcome? I think that depends upon how it is conducted. It's clear that, currently, your side has the numbers, but I don't think you've done at all well in arguing the logic of your position nor in rebutting the logic of ours. (Clearly, I accept that I would say something like that, and accept that you may well not agree with me; or, indeed, that you might agree with me but not admit it since it doesn't help your position. Such is life in the trenches.) So what is the RfC? A vote? You win; the highways people seem better motivated to enter the discussion than either of the disinterested or the geo-coord people. You win on strength of numbers, but in the way of things, maybe that's not the best outcome for wikipedia. (Again, yes, I would say that.) Or is it more like AfD, where numbers are not (or should not be) the chief determinant, but rather the relative strength of arguments with respect to policy?

My preference right now is for something you've already, in part, damned in section 4: an articulation of the pros & cons of various approaches; an articulation of the options open to us; experimentation with mock-ups of tables to see what various options look like. These things seem to me to be sensible preconditions for an RfC.

If that puts me out of step with the pace and direction of your efforts, so be it. I respect that fact that you may not be well impressed that I will not give the RfC unequivocal support right now, but there it is; that's my position. I'd prefer delay - as has been suggested a number of times - and discussion, before being asked for a commitment one way or another.

I should note, also, that I'm only online intermittently. After I close out some time this evening, I'll likely not be back until Wednesday evening next. Not sulking, merely living some of the time in a place which does not have internet connectivity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you had allowed us to make our own arguments rather than making them for us, then I might have considered something like section 4. But the way that you had it set up led me to condemn it right away. It was basically a "fill in the blank with what we want you to fill in the blank".
I see the potential RFC more like RFA rather than any of the scenarios you've presented. Where yes, numbers matter, but the closing bureaucrat has the ability to discount some arguments should things be on the borderline.
You're basing all your arguments on the belief that you are right. But what if you're wrong? What if other editors don't believe you're right or agree with you? What gives you the inherent right to discount our views?
I would prefer to delay and discuss, but one editor seems hell bent on getting his way and is forcing the issue. A RFC is the only way that I see forward to end the discussion and to defend our own interests. --Rschen7754 23:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
In fairness, I did ask at the top of section 4 that everyone join in. The arguments I added were merely culled from the prior discussions. I came away with the impression that you did not think it would be to your advantage to join in section 4.
None of us are right or wrong. We have different views on what is best for wikipedia.
I don't agree that Andy is forcing an RfC right now. Clearly no-one has a mandate to change the RJL MoS page right now; neither would anyone be wise to force the issue by seeking to add coords to roads. So I cannot agree that your hand is being forced and that further discussion prior to, and of, the RfC is out of the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Who is to say what is best for Wikipedia? We can't tell the future. Our only option is to make our best guess. And that's where "voting" is necessary. At the end of the day, there's no way any Wikipedia discussion can be closed against the majority opinion. It's just like in a democracy; at the end of the day, we can't evaluate strength of arguments, except with our individual vote.
What are your comments about Andy's comments right now? To us it seems like he's being quite difficult. He's clearly misinterpreting RJL, and saying that coordinates are required for FAs (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria), a dangerous "precedent" that if implemented, would be disastrous. We can't allow this to stand.
You didn't fully address the question: if the RFC took place in a fair and equitable manner, would you abide by the results? --Rschen7754 23:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The RfC page - WP:RFC says "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.". That's one of the central problems I have in entering into an endorsement of an RfC in which you state that '"voting" is necessary'. Would you care to reconcile that difference?
I don't think the current discussion is very useful. I've already said that it is generating heat and not light. Indeed, I've kinda switched off from it. In so far as the featured road article from a couple of days ago had no coordinates in it, it clearly is the de facto case that road articles can make it to FA without coordinates. I don't actually think that is a good thing: it seems barking mad to me that there is no link in that article which allows me to see the road in question on a map. I don't think that Andy is currently winning friends nor influencing people, but whether and what he posts is his call. My position is that the current discussion is barren, and that is why - apart from seeking to correct Ffloydian's inaccurate assertion - I'm steering clear of the discussion.
(talk page stalker) The article does have a link to the route on OpenStreetMap, so you could, in fact, see it on a map. I'm not trying to be combative, just pointing it out. –Fredddie™ 00:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Your input is appreciated, Freddie, and I stand corrected. And I see there's an EL to google maps satellite view. I'd prefer a link to the geohack page, but there we go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If the RfC were based on discussion, I would be minded to support it. If it is based on votes, as you state that it will be, I would not be able to support it since it would not be, to my mind, and to my reading of WP:RFC, an RfC. And so I come back to my central point, that this is a time for more preparation and less speed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If the RFC is based on discussion, then it's just going to be what we have now, with a fancy tag on it, and the discussion will go on, and on, and on. Sometimes votes are necessary in RFCs - take a look at the bureaucrat threshold one that's currently open. Also, the way this potential RFC is structured, it's not a straight vote count - editors can mark "First choice", "Second choice", etc. This will result in a more accurate reflection of consensus. The closing admin/editor is responsible for gauging which option has the most consensus, which may be the option with the most votes... but not necessarily. Sometimes voting is necessary: [3] is an example of a scenario where everything had been talked to death and the only way to settle things was by a vote. Another example in our past was WP:SRNC (granted, I was 15-16 at the time and didn't frame it too well) - neither side was going to budge, and so finally a vote had to be taken. (By the way, if the closing admin thinks that the RFC is horribly structured, they of course have the right to make that comment in their close). --Rschen7754 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So, we may be able to compromise on an understanding such as, voting may not be decisive but may (or may not) be taken by the closing admin(s) to be indicative ... or somesuch. I very much appreciate the view that the RfC should not be a repeat of the current discussions. But I cannot buy a suggestion that voting is more accurate reflection of consensus ... it is not. It does indicate which of the options is preferred by a plurality of those attending the RfC, but it may just reflect the fact that one camp has been better able than the other to mobilise its voters. I'd go so far as to suggest that it would be a better thing if those involved hitherto stood back from the voting, and let previously uninvolved people comment and !vote on the proposals.
I note that the WP:SRNC had a panel of uninvolved admins responsible for the decision. I think I'd feel happier were we to adopt the same approach. As much as possible, I'd like to take as much of the thing out of our hands, since we do seem to be so deeply entrenched in our own positions. I think, too, that it might be beneficial to hand the question of how the decision will be made (i.e. the question of the weight that might be given to argument versus the weight given to votes) to that panel of uninvolved admins. I don't think it very wise for either side to seek to organise or legislate the RfC.
And I would, too, like there to be sufficient time to prepare for the RfC. I do not think that time is of the essence. I do think we should be able to work together to discuss the format and presentation of the RfC, and to take advice from uninvolved admins; and I would rather we got it right than that we went off half-cocked. And for me, that means time to elucidate the principal arguments to provide context for the proposals (and yes, that would probably be, for me, section 4 redux) and to prepare examples of the tables that would arise as the outcomes of any of the proposals.
I think I have something else to say on canvassing, but maybe not enough time to say it right now (not enough time to develop my thoughts properly). I am disappointed that so few people from the geo-coord project have got involved - not because I necessarily anticipate their support, but because I think they should be able to provide informed opinion. There are at least three of so that I can think of that I'd like to approach to chivvy them into contributing. I guess we would need to reach agreement on exactly what forms of communication prior to an RfC are and are not acceptable.
So - and in conclusion for tonight and without much chance of hearing more from me for a few days - I would be very willing to give my full support to a well designed, well regulated, neutrally determined RfC. (I appreciate, btw, that it's inconvenient that I have to bow out for a few days, but that's force majeur. And on the one hand, I don't expect everything to stop just because I cannot contribute; on the other hand, as I've said, I don't think time is of the essence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:SRNC was following an ArbCom case, and the matter was much more controversial and had a bigger impact than this one does. I think we're fine with just asking an uninvolved admin to close the discussion.
In regards to canvassing, WP:CANVASS is the Wikipedia policy. Any notices you most have to be neutrally worded.
If you believe that you are right and that your arguments are more reasoned out, then you should be able to attract the majority vote, right? Remember, a RFC gets posted all over Wikipedia, so we'll have editors giving input who are neither of the coordinates project nor the roads project. --Rschen7754 01:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I find I have some internet time earlier than I anticipated.

You say "we're fine with just asking an uninvolved admin to close the discussion." You need to understand very clearly and unambiguously why trust is at an all time low:

  • [4], your decision to report the closure of a no consensus discussion as no consensus to do whatever it was that you didn't want doing;
  • [5] your decision, as it looks to me, when things didn't seem to be going the way you wanted in one forum, to appeal to another forum to enforce your preferred rule;
  • [6] your appeal to AN/I when someone involved in a discussion didn't agree with your peremptory closure of the discussion;
  • [7] the centrality of voting in your plans for the RfC, despite WP:RfC stating that RfCs are not votes. On this last one, you have not moved away from your "votes are king" worldview - "If you believe that you are right and that your arguments are more reasoned out, then you should be able to attract the majority vote, right?" Wrong. Depends on who turns up. For instance, in an electorate of eight or so people, six of whom are dead set against coords in RJLs, no amount of good argument will win the vote.
  • [8], what appears to me to be some sort of loyalty oath before an RfC which I believe is intended by you to be a by-vote show of strength.
  • And finally, your refusal, to date, to enter into any meaningful discussion of what we see as the key policy issues in ducking the section 4 debate. It's one thing to have a strong preference. Another entirely, especially having stared a dispute resolution process, to refuse to enter into discussions about the policy underlying the dispute.

So, yes, indeed. Trust is at an all time low. And I think if you'd be kind enough to put yourself in my position for a moment and consider the above, you'd agree that that this absence of trust has not been reached without cause.

For a meaningful - as opposed to a gerrymandered - RfC to go ahead, we do need to see that everything is above board. You comment "WP:SRNC ... was much more controversial". I see no lack of controversy here, and nor do I see anything like a meeting of minds as to how to go forwards. You - very highly implicated in wishing the decision to go a certain way (which is your right) - are arguing for what seems like a very lax approach to the final settlement of the issue, and as noted, to seem to think that votes are all. Again, I think it behooves you to step back a little and see this as others such as I see it, and agree to take such extra steps as will lead to the whole process being run completely in line with WP:RfC and without the possibility of bias in the closing. And for that, surely, it is safer to ask for a group of uninvolved admins that a singleton? And, as I noted above, but you to date ignored entirely, to spend some time agreeing the form of the RfC rather than seeking to dictate it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's sort of moot right now. I'd like to respond to several of your points which I believe incorrect, but I don't think it's worthwhile to take the time given the latest developments. It seems that the discussion has died down, though Andy is continuing on a guerrila-warfare style campaign (see his post to ANI a few days ago about an unrelated block that two U.S. road editors made, and his current oppose on a road FAC). So we're all leaving the discussion alone for a while now. I'd be interested in revisiting the question in a few months, but for now we're enjoying the peace and quiet. --Rschen7754 20:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:204.111.64.196

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 Over-aggressive warnings/ blocking of User:204.111.64.196. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

User:Jonathan Yip returns as User:Luke Solo

Hi! Please block Jonathan Yip's latest Luke Solo's edits include Chinese-related flights and airports, California places climate, and what gave him away, adding fantasy LEGO International Airport destinations on his own talk page, just like User:Alec Skywalker did. HkCaGu (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And please block sockpuppet User:67.188.144.38 and take away talk page access of User:207.62.246.151. HkCaGu (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay; the entire county lost power for several hours. --Rschen7754 06:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go over User:12.236.111.206 and User:12.34.83.137 and block accordingly. Also, User:67.188.144.38 has edited his own talk page with nonsense. HkCaGu (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the first two. I usually don't initially block with talk disabled so that the user has the right to appeal. I didn't see a need to revoke access with the 67 IP.
I'm also considering some sort of long-term abuse report (WP:LTA); this is getting ridiculous. --Rschen7754 06:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Rschen7754! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


DRN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Road coordinates". Thank you.

I know you're already at the page, but just filling out the forms as a Clerk at DRN --Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

User:Jonathan Yip has resurfaced as User:Ryan Yip

Well has hasn't touched the Interstates yet, but LEGO International Airport has resurfaced on his User Talk page and the muddling of climate date had begun. HkCaGu (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Indef'ed. We may want to look into filing a WP:LTA report, as this is ridiculous. --Rschen7754 21:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. Cheers! SMasters (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Rschen7754 05:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Last Warning

I was unaware of a warning system being in place. This being said, you should revert the pages I edited, back to my editions, and after this, the next warning I get should be my first warning, and I can get another warning, and the warning after that should be my last warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.5.6 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Warnings are not entitlements; if the behavior is bad enough (as yours clearly is), then we may skip warnings and go right to blocks. --Rschen7754 03:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you know what you are talking about mate. You are clearly in the wrong, now if you can just admit your mistakes we can get this show back on the road. 131.170.90.2 (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you know what you're talking about, because you're evading a block. And that results in another block. --Rschen7754 05:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Nomination for deletion of Template:USRD essay

Template:USRD essay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Volume 4, Issue 3 • Fall 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates

Project reports for

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—JCbot (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Jonathan Yip at 67.188.144.38

He's back at 67.188.144.38. HkCaGu (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent away for three months. --Rschen7754 00:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Another one: User:Diarmuid Skywalker. HkCaGu (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754. Maybe it's time to review these two accounts: User:Lucas Skywalker and User:Diarmuid Skywalker--

User:Lucas Skywalker has only edited twice on article space, and those are OK. However, he's doing the LEGO International Airport crap on his talk pages, including a bunch of edits just today.
User:Diarmuid Skywalker has edited article space only, and all edits have been reversed.

Given that his identity is obvious, I think an indef block (and an appeal period before talk privilege is taken awway) is appropriate. HkCaGu (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the first. The second is probably him too, but I'm going to wait a little on that one. --Rschen7754 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
He just added LEGO stuff on the Diarmuid talk page. (I reverted.) HkCaGu (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your ACE questions

Hi there. In previous years the elections have had problems with the sheer amount of questions asked, and with the quality of the questions asked. No solution has made itself apparent, so I'm going to try something new:

I believe your asking of ten questions, and the threat you placed behind them, is inappropriate. If you wanted to ask general questions to all the candidates, there was an opportunity to have them included in the general questions section. Moreover, many of your questions can be combined, thus reducing the overall burden on both the candidate, and more importantly, on the community (which will probably have to read 100s of answers now). Please consider reducing the number of questions you've asked. I can see a way to turn it into six questions by combining several of them (13+14+15) and scrapping two (18 as largely duplicitive to general question 2, and 12 as not having to do with ArbCom).

Please consider it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, people are allowed to ask an unlimited amount of good faith questions, I am only asking for you to try and be considerate in limiting the number, since other people will be asking multiple questions as well, and it looks increasingly likely that we're going to hit 50+ questions a candidate. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The way I write my election guides (User:Rschen7754/ACE2010), it makes it difficult to tell a candidate's views on something if they don't answer the question, and it leads me to question if they will be able to carry out the workload if they can't answer 50+ questions like this. The "threat" isn't a threat, it's my being honest and saying that it will make it hard for me to recommend you in my guide if you don't answer.
I participated in the RFC, and this was the outcome: "Qualified voters may ask an unlimited number of relevant questions. Questions are subject to removal if irrelevant, but not because they are too numerous." I fail to see where I have gone against this. This is the third year that I've asked questions like this (2007, 2008, and 2009) - see the pages starting with User:Rschen7754/ACExxxx and User:Rschen7754/ArbComxxxx to see what they were and how they were scored.
The questions have been written to get specific views on situations that frequently come across the desk of ArbCom. I split question 3, 4, and 5 like they have been split to make sure candidates address all parts of the question. Question 8 is worded specifically how it is to get the specific line the potential arb would use. --Rschen7754 06:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

UK Roads

Much the same applies to you and your tag-team partner. You've both reverted edits which added previously missing road junctions. Between you and me, I think deleting unambiguously unimpeachable new content - previously missing road junctions in road junction list - is more of a problem than reverting a minor formatting change. YMMV, or, indeed, based on your recent form, possibly you think these rules apply to everyone else but yourself. Could I also be clear that whilst WP:RJL offers no advice on how coordinates should be added to road junction lists - and you know fine well that that is the current state of affairs - you should not use RJL to further your personal dislike of coordinate columns.

To avoid further waste of our time, could I suggest that you and your friend desist from trying to own UK roads. By all means keep the US roads in the dark ages; I have no interest in them. Why not tolerate coords in UK roads, and let's see if anyone but you and your friend object? We've had precisely zero complaints or comments on other of the UK roads which have coord columns, suggesting that others who have the roads on their watchlists either approve or are indifferent. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to User:Martinvl? Also, yes, I reverted the addition of one by accident, but that's why you use the edit summary to say that you added an exit: [9]. You proceeded to remove all of the header changes, and reverted to a version that violates WP:MOSITALICS. And you may think that the U.S. roads are in the dark ages, but we have 37 FAs, 601 GAs, and now 1000 B-class articles. The UK roads project only has 4 FAs and 6 GAs, and 77 B-class articles. (Even with the percentage argument, the US roads project still has quite more; feel free to do the math.) UK roads also has an "inactive WikiProject" tag on their project page. (Feel free to remove it, but I'm just saying....) Eventually the rest of the world will be on the RJL standard. Then, the UK roads will be well into the dark ages. --Rschen7754 17:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at M23 motorway

Hello. I am unprotecting M23 motorway per a request on my talk page so that an editor can continue to make constructive edits to this page. I am writing this to you specifically as you were involved in a recent edit war on that page (which is not related to the request on my talk page), and I'm notifying you that any edit warring whatsoever in the next 2 weeks will be met with a block. Please don't take this as a license to edit war in the future.

Please do not interpret this as me taking anyone's specific side, or as accusing any specific editor either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

ArbCom election 2011

Just a FYI - I changed question #1 so it's more fair for you (definitely didn't realize the involved party thing). Thanks. --Rschen7754 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had noticed. I am still on holiday in Nice, so questions which involve a bit of research I am leaving until I have more time when I get back home. We are flying back tomorrow, so I hope to have some time for research on Thursday. The questions which involve the most amount of research are going to be the questions which get put to the back of the pile. If the research appears to be unreasonable it is likely I will not fully answer the question, though I hope to be able to leave some kind of response. I am quite comfortable with people not voting for me because my time is limited. I put myself forward when I read in Signpost that only four people had nominated themselves. The situation has clearly changed between the Signpost article being written and me reading it last night just before the cut off point, as I see that several people have volunteered. If there are enough decent candidates it would be more appropriate for them to be elected in place of me. But if I am elected, I will live up to the commitment, as that is in my nature. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I have given a brief answer to your question. I see that you were involved in that ArbCom case - apart from the length of time it took, were you satisfied with the result? Did it end the conflict? SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom spent 3-4 months on this case and it barely resolved anything, as you can see from the final decision. :| --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

TYVM

Thanks for notifying me about the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Merry Christmas!

Christmas, Michigan, is a small town along M-28 in the Upper Peninsula Merry Christmas
Here's wishing you and yours safe travels, full gas tanks and good writing in the new year! Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Rschen7754 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Talkback

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Coordinates_and_original_research.
Message added 17:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 17:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for clarifying it about Jimbo's ceremony. Spevw (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Rschen7754,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Hi. When you recently edited California State Route 139, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ambrose, California and Homestead, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Rschen7754,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Interstate 67?

I don't know if Interstate 67 will ever get built, but I found this page about a study on it. Allen (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The page doesn't load for me... I'm not really familiar with how to do future Interstates, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The link is http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=227&articleID=62930.
If there is any help that you need, feel free to ask me or Imzadi1979 for help.
Allen (talk)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Re do

Your oppose at the AN on Rlevse doesn't match with the comment you entered-- perhaps you could go doublecheck what you entered vs what the proposal is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it does; an indefinite block is not necessarily an infinite block, as in this case; it's a block until the issues are addressed. --Rschen7754 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited California State Route 57, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Highway System (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Racepacket

By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location,  Roger Davies talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Thanks --

Arg. I was being sloppy and didn't recognize that everything I was reading was old news. Glad you quickly reverted my careless comment. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. The user's currently blocked until June, with an ArbCom motion for an indefinite ban taking place. --Rschen7754 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


The Signpost: 13 February 2012


MSU Interview

Dear Rschen7754,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd reply, but I think User talk:SilkTork said everything I wanted to say. --Rschen7754 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

interstate 57 --

in late 2007 former mayor Joann Kelly annexed all of that area witch was divieded between unincoperated Country Club Hills and unincorporated Oak Forest so now what used to be localy known as the south country club hills exit is now locally called the oak forest i-57 exit. this is because this land is know owned by the city of oak forest — Preceding unsigned comment added by COOTER228 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay... --Rschen7754 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
so can some one please change it on the interstate 57 page on the exit list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by COOTER228 (talk • contribs) 18:02, February 22, 2012
You're welcome to do so, if you wish. --Rschen7754 23:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done, acknowledging that editing within links and tables can be confusing when you are new here. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, Rschen, thanks for the welcome! I'm working on a new article, User:Fma12/Provincial_Route_2_(Argentina), about one of the most important roads of Argentina. When the article is finished, I'll be glad if you or other editors could help me to improve it with your grammar or style corrections, because I'm not a native English speaker . Thanks again, we'll surely be in touch soon. Regards, Fma12 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so far! (BTW, I understand some Spanish, but it's been a while, and it's probably worse than your understanding of English.) --Rschen7754 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support !!! The article is ready and submitted. You can find it here: Provincial Route 2 (Buenos Aires) and I hope it like you. Of course you are welcome to leave your feedback and to improve and expand the article, Thanks again ! Best Fma12 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks good! This may be the best article in the Latin America region on the English Wikipedia. The only thing I'm concerned about is the route diagram. On the English Wikipedia we do WP:RJL tables instead due to accessibility concerns and because our tables provide a little more information. Feel free to ask if you have any questions! --Rschen7754 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. It makes me feel very proud of my work, which took many days to be ready although there are still some sections to be improved. About route diagrams, I took the template from another route article (I think it was on the Spanish Wikipedia but I'm not pretty sure). Beyond that, I'm going to add a WP:RJL table to the article to be in the tone of English WP. Thanks in advance !Fma12 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_14&oldid=1089989060"