User talk:Rschen7754

Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if it is related to a section above. Otherwise it is difficult to find the posting. Do NOT use {{talkback}} or {{tb}} on this page. I am watching your talkpage and will notice if you have responded. If you are here because of my speedy deletions, please read WP:CSD first before posting. Notice: I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent.

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

• News and notes: NPG copyright irony; Citizendium's finances; Credo accounts donated; brief news

• In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine

• Features and admins: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases

• Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notification

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. Thank you. Bill william compton^Talk 18:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. But needs your attension. KnowIG (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

SMasters has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks for the rv! – SMasters (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

California 180 Edit

I am just curious as to why you state that my addition to this particular page wasn't constructive. The fact that the Fowler Interchange is named after my daughter is very constructive. She is one of only two civilians in California who have a Freeway Interchange named after her. Unless you are going to edit the page and put the name into the table for that particular Interchange. Right now it just says open December of 2009. Just curious...should that be it's own page? Thank you for your time. Ghost101 2004 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Rschen7754 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is a history site and she is a part of it, and a part of the California 180 Exchange. Because of her death, there are new flagging laws in effect in the state. She is a part of law now...not just a memorial.Ghost101 2004 (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it was phrased made it sound like an obituary. I can list several things wrong with your edit: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI (you're definitely not a neutral party), Wikipedia:Recentism, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a history site. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but Wikipedia is a professional-quality encyclopedia, not a memorial site. If you want a memorial site, there are plenty of free web hosting providers out there. --Rschen7754 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it was phrased was taken from the first bookmark on the page. I didn't write that, but your reference did. If you are not going to be accurate about the substance of your articles, then so be it. Not my loss. Why would I want my daughters name mentioned on here anyways? She is in the law books and on the 180. I find it amusing that there are pics of Biola and Kerman on there. If you haven't heard by now those are memorial sites...lol! Good day!

So now you've got plagiarism to add to that as well. At Wikipedia we don't do plagiarism and it can get your account blocked. --Rschen7754 01:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Block it, I will be deleting it...:) You are extremely rude and I don't deal with people such as you. Get your education and take a class in dealing with people, cuz, you are lacking... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost101 2004 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghost101 2004, I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I'm agreeing with Rschen here in general. Your edit, [1] did a number of different things. To address the first part, your addition broke a reference in the article. Second, as for the paragraph you added to the end of the route description, it's a bit too much information. Most highway articles don't cover any memorial highway names applied to the roads. Several of them that I write on roads in Michigan do though. When I've added them, they're similar to what's done on U.S. Route 131 or U.S. Route 41 in Michigan. I give them a separate section and cover all of the named sections of the road. Each one is given an appropriate weight relative to the whole article. To be honest, these sections aren't added until the rest of the article is pretty much complete to avoid overwhelming the content of the article. SR-180 had two paragraphs on 112 miles and one paragraph on a single interchange. Can you see where your addition unbalanced the content? Most of your addition wasn't even about the road, focusing instead on your daughter. I'm sympathetic, but we just don't do that sort of thing around here, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

• News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news

• In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news

• WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify

• Features and admins: Featured list milestone

• Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting a new conversation Re Hollywood Freeway

Started a section on the talk page. We need to have full discussion and engage community input. This is much better than edit warring. --Oakshade (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues

I don't want to comment on the RfC. I just want to work on the articles I've been involved with and be left alone. " Wikipedia:Peer review/Netball in the Cook Islands/archive1‎ (diff | hist) . . (+1,774) . . Racepacket (talk | contribs) (→Netball in the Cook Islands: start peer review)" Stuff like that makes it very difficult for me as all I want to do is be left alone. I promise not to edit articles that he has been involved with. I promise to stay away from running. I promise not to peer review his articles. I promise not to Good Article his reviews. I just want to be left alone! What will it take to be left alone? --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to take the advice at peer review. --Rschen7754 21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You proposed he disengage with me. And right after you did, he immediately engaged. Given your proposal, can you please help? (Because I redacted my statements and disengaged already.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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).

Rschen7754 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-04/Technology report - it's not live yet...

Decline reason:

Just because. Rschen7754 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U-related

Racepacket has yet to comment on my proposed solution because neither you nor Dough have indicated an opinion of it. He's said that he's running the "risk that the other two will jump back in and ask for more". Can you comment on the RfC/U talk page to indicate your opinion of the specific proposal so that maybe he'll finally indicate his opinion of it? Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ok

That doesn't go down well with me..... anyhow, who will then review my GA article? Thanks for telling me. --TIAYN (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to post at WT:GAN and explain the situation, and hopefully someone else will volunteer to take over the review. --Rschen7754 06:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom notes

Noticed you linked to my talk page on your statement. Racepacket made a reply, and I've updated my talk page for it. You should update the diff link.[2] - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure it'll be a huge deal since we'll have to submit evidence anyway. Thanks though. --Rschen7754 07:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I-8 state details

I discovered an IP had found nearly every state-detail article that had been started (infobox, two- or three-sentence lead, and junction list) and then redirected back to the main article. Two of those articles were I-8 (CA) and I-8 (AZ). That got me thinking, since the consensus was to only have one article since I-8 is so short, can we delete the state detail articles and then recreate them as a redirect just so we can enforce that consensus? –Fredddie™ 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should direct you to Special:Contributions/81.190.241.34 if you haven't seen it already. It seemed far too calculated for it to be random... –Fredddie™ 17:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 405 (California)

Why did you undo my edit so fast? How is it "not encyclopedic?" I-405 detours (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a news site, and the closure of one off/onramp among hundreds is not significant in the long run. --Rschen7754 22:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom take 2 and Racepacket

As it appears that the RfC is not closing soon and that my issues have been largely ignored on the previous ArbCom and Racepacket appears unwilling to give on the issue of his involvement with netball, I am willing to be a party to the second one. Below is a copy of the text that I intend to post. If you could use this to help write a summary for ArbComm, that would be fantastic. It may be better to describe the section as LauraHale/women's sport instead of netball as the major involvement wasn't so much the topic as his pursuit of me personally.

Anyway, onewards with the personal statement from hell...

---

This is my statement. I did not involve myself in the original arbcom proposal because I was optimistic that I would not be needed, that the RfC for Racepacket would result in him being prohibited from my writing areas, and that I would be left alone. I was also concerned that Racepacket would be willing to go further and create real life consequences for my on wiki activity as he had previously sought to do so. The latter part has been my major prevailing concern regarding participating since it was brought to my attention. In the end, all I really want to do is edit women's sport articles and sport articles about oceania and be left alone in peace. I would still be willing to honor this attempt to reach an agreement for disengagement.

Personal back story: I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia. People I know at the Foundation know this. It is something that I have routinely said for about four or five year. Because of increasing contact with Wikimedia Australia and heavy involvement by my department and University on WMF, as a result of an interest in increasing the visibility of women's sport, and because I wanted to encourage others to edit Wikipedia to improve its content, I decided to contribute to Wikipedia. It is difficult to talk to people about Wikipedia and its culture, and how to edit Wikipedia if you have not done so yourself. I started to do this in January or February of 2011. I started working on netball because it is a women's sport article. There is a major championship coming up. The topic did not seem very controversial to me because the topic should not generally attract the attention of men or Americans given the nature of the sport. I chose to learn about Wikipedia editing through the Good Article and Featured Article process. This was for three reasons: 1. I wanted to improve the netball article so that it could potentially be on the front page during the netball world championships in July. 2. I have a friend who has gone through the process and the process was described to me as a good way to learn about Wikipedia. 3. On a personal level, I liked the rigour involved with citations and research. This would be a challenge to find citations to support the text and a learning opportunity in terms of teaching myself about a popular women's sport. Prior to my involvement in January/February 2011, I had fewer than 100 edits to Wikipedia and have never substantially contributed to any article. In effect, I was a newbie and I did not know much about the process going into this. When possible, I contacted other knowledgable contributors online and off for help to guide me through the GA process, especially when things appeared to go south.

For me, this situation has involved four failed GAs, two passed GAs, one FAC, one peer review, two projects (Good Articles, Olympics), meta, a project proposal (women's sport), a block for Racepacket for disruptive editing, a sock puppeting investigation, repeated comments to my talk page, comments to other people's talk pages, an RfC, changes to the GA proposal process to say that nominators can remove their own nominations being required, an article being locked, and a previous ArbCom nomination. I'm not brief by nature and given the huge number of pages and projects involved, this isn't brief. It also isn't entirely comprehensive.

• Outing my real life identity by contacting who he thought was my employer and connecting my online identity with my offline identity as a scholar.
• Tried to get me into trouble with the organisation he thought was my employer.
• Despite my denials of a connection to WMF, asked if I was not claiming to work for them
• Made claims about my research not in good faith that misrepresented my work professionally
• Blocked for disruptive editing by making a single edit to create a failed GA review for an article in the middle of a name change
• Additional block for suspected sockpuppeting to get around a block
• Sock puppet editing of an article that he was in dispute over
• Repeated edits to Talk:Netball/GA1 after it had been closed/withdrawn[3][4][5][6][7]
• Closed nomination had to be locked because of repeated edits
• Failed GA after it had been withdrawn by nominator
• Repeatedly editing a user's talk page in dispute with despite requests not to: [8][9][10]
• Asked others to take over the GA nomination of the netball article so he could continue to review it despite my having withdrawn it [11][12]
• Starting another netball GA despite being in dispute with nominator on another article
• Quick/failed a third Netball GA nomination by me despite ongoing RfC and despite with nominator
• Continued to comment on new Netball GAs nominated by me despite ongoing RfC and dispute with user: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
• Proposed merge between two completely unrelated netball topics
• Engaged in a personal attack on me
• Followed me over to Olynmpic project with the arguement of No Olympic Recgonised Sport (despite repeated citations having been provided elsewhere.)
• Got involved in a peer review of netball article he had GA failed despite RfC asking for disengagement and knowing that I found his continued involvement with articles I was editing distressing [22][23]
• Sought an outsider to help him when I reverted his peer review of an article he had failed and despite my requests for him to stop interacting with me and the RfC asking him to disengage from involvement with netball articles
• Appeared on a proposal for a topic not previously involved in but where he has a dispute with major participant
• Alleged no consensus when there was clearly consensus
• Disputed the truth of the article despite citations to support claims [24]
• Overstepped GA process, violating good fatih, by asking for verification of text sources and offering to go to the American Library of Congress to verify sources [25] This genuinely bothered me as it felt like harrassment. The books in question are not available at the Library of Congress. Beyond this, it felt indicative of American editing bias, because it assumed that non-American texts would be available there. The issue of pro-American/anti-world thinking as a source of general contention between myself and Racepacket.
• Paraphrasing issues[26] This bothered me because some one who was at one point indefinetely blocked for similar issues was going after for me this, offered no proof to support his accusation, wanted to iniatiate personal, and off wiki contact. The two issues combined of no support for this statement combined with requests for personal, off wiki contact felt like harrassment. As I was/am relatively new to Wikipedia, I did not know where to bring these concerns. If this was done again in combination with the meta contact, I know I would immediately bring it to ANI. Had I done that with this accusation and the meta issue, we would likely not be here and Racepacket would be facing a much longer block.
• Responded antagonstically to my requests to the Good Article nomination process for help in dealing with my good article issues [27]
• On April 21, continued to imply I inappropiately paraphrased despite having no proof. Further, he suggested sanctions on my behavior based on his unproven assertions.
• As of April 21, continuing to bring up netball and sourcing issues [28][29]
• Ignores sources when serves his cause as he'd been given multiple sources to netball being Olympic recognised when reviewing that article and in article he reviwed about netball and the Olympic article

I do think that it would be more helpful to the case though if you posted it yourself. I mean, not saying I'm not willing to help, but the more voices we have, especially from an eyewitness, the more help. --Rschen7754 06:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to post it when the ArbCom thing is refiled. That's basically what my statement will be. If you have any further suggestions for what I should include, that would be helpful as I'd rather thoroughly like to make this case to once and for all to be done with this. I've posted it here so that you could basically see a summary of what happened when/if you repost so that you can have an easier time filling out the netball/LauraHale/women's sport section as last time, it had nothing. --LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Keep in mind that your statement is limited to 500 words and should concisely prove why ArbCom should intervene. --Rschen7754 06:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

500 words? Blech. :( Which is more important? The story or the links to the problems? --LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You need the story, yes, and you need a minimum of diffs to back up what you say. You'll have a chance to submit evidence later if the case is accepted. --Rschen7754 07:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)