Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

In regards to the Ventura Freeway

See my proposal at Talk:California State Route 134. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

WikiProject U.S. Roads in the Signpost

I know you recently announced your retirement, but I thought you might still be interested since you founded the project:

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Roads for a Signpost article to be published in early May. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I could participate. (Sorry for the delay - somebody just told me about this off wiki - I haven't been checking Wikipedia lately). I should have this done by tomorrow night - shoot me an email if I don't have this done Saturday. --Rschen7754 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
— JCbot (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

New Zealand State Highway 8

The reason I'd the the browsee link for the next route to 1 on New Zealand State Highway 8 was because it was the last of the National routes according to Template:New Zealand State Highway navbox but if you think that 10 is a better link then I'll leave it at that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, 10 is better - it makes more sense to the reader not familiar with the NZ system, and allows the reader to navigate through all the articles. --Rschen7754 08:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

U.S. Routes

Shouldn't U.S. Route 45 be considered a major route? It crosses the entire country and is just as important as others endinag in 0 or 1. Also, U.S. Routes 75, 77, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, and 95 should all be considered major, as they either do or did cross the whole country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1291998 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Major routes as defined by AASHTO are only ones ending in 0 or 1, with possibly US 2. No exceptions. --Rschen7754 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the deal, you're calling the second longest and formerly longest U.S. Route unimportant. U.S. Route 6 is an important route and you should know it. It provides a major corridor alternate to Interstate 80 and Interstate 90, but furthermore is a city road. It travels through the Salt Lake City area, Denver, Omaha, Des Moines, Davenport, Moline, Chicago, South Bend, and Erie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1291998 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it to Template talk:U.S. Routes - we've decided to only highlight routes ending in 0 or 1, with US 2, and while you're welcome to try and get consensus for your changes, it probably won't happen. --Rschen7754 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Geocoding

If you can't tell, I'm all for geocoding roads, but it is imperative that it be done correctly. I took my original thoughts from the other day and expanded how I think it should be done. Check out my sandbox on it to see what I'm talking about. –Fredddie™ 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would definitely be doable. --Rschen7754 06:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with you that every intersection should not be geocoded. Take I-5 for example. I don't think it would be unreasonable to find an intersection every 150 miles or so and tag it. It would draw a decent line that shows where it is without creating an obscene amount of dots on the GeoHack maps. –Fredddie™ 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin/Noticeboard discussion that you closed

On July 16th you closed this Admin Notice. The charges had not been addressed yet. Could you please address them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=373860895&oldid=373860799

User Huey45 is acting in bad faith

Huey45 says…

“I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. This is clearly a deliberate lie. Huey has repeatedly misrepresented the content of sources. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What's even more troubling is that other users didn't challenge huey's statements and instead say that I shouldn't call huey45 a liar even though he is clearly acting in bad faith.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. WP:ANI is not for dispute resolution. You haven't indicated what an administrator could do, if anything. --Rschen7754 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This not a dispute, he deliberately lied about the content of the sources. He is acting in bad faith so I went to the ani board.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Then file a WP:RFC against him. There is little that admins can do. --Rschen7754 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Your response: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Rschen7754 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The website www.SanOnofreBeach.org is not a personal website. It serves the same purpose as SanOnofre.com. The purpose of this site is for informational purposes both pertaining to news and recreation at San Onofre State Beach. In addition, it is primarily used as a source for directions, location information, background as well as a resource guide. Please advise why you feel this site is not a valid site to be referenced as a source on Wikipedia second to SanOnofre.com. (SanOSleuth (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

This does not meet the reliable source or external link guidelines for Wikipedia. No, it's not a personal website, but that's not the only criteria for disqualification of a link. --Rschen7754 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
— JCbot (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

About: removal of "south to north" sub-text on B.C. 91A article as well as other articles, compromise

In my opinion this is something that may really need to be cleared up. Without that small bit of text that says which direction the exit list is in (i.e. the exits are listed from south to north), there is no way to tell which side of the exit list is which end of the highway - i.e. north, or east. This is probably more evident in in exit lists that do not list "northern terminus" or "southern terminus" at each end of the lists (i.e. in favour of "continues as <insert route here>"). I'm thinking the best compromises are either the required use of the words northern, western, etc. on each end of the exit list, the requirement of exits to be listed in a certain direction (i.e. north to south) or a small bit of text either before the exit list or in the legend section of the bottom stating direction, if there aren't already ways to make this clear - and if there are, that it be an imposed requirement for all exit lists. Since this issue has involved one particular exit list so far and currently remains between us, I've decided to bring it here before going to WP:RJL to discuss. -Deltanalliance (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary. The United States never uses text like that since all of its lists (and the route description) follow the convention of going from south to north. "Northern terminus" and "Southern terminus" are redundant for the same reason. --Rschen7754 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Two secondary notes, the two ends are listed in the infobox as "South end:/North end:" as long as |direction_a=South |direction_b=North is set. Of course with some oddball highways that have a southern and a eastern terminus, like Interstate 69 in Michigan, or another combination of directions, then the infobox will reflect that. To put the termini notes in the junction list table is redundant. All junction/exit lists should start with the lowest distance measurement/exit number and work to the highest measurement/exit number, which in the US should be south to north and west to east. I believe Canada follows the same convention for distance measurement and exit numbering as well. Where there are exceptions, only then is a note above the table needed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Very well, it appears that it already is standardized that all exit lists be written from south to north or west to east to follow exit numbering, with some minor exceptions so I believe any more discussion is unnecessary. -Deltanalliance (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Edit to I-80 in California

You reverted my change and quoted WP:RJL as stating says the list "is necessary" (for some reason that means shouldn't be collapsed).

WP:RJL doesn't say when a list is necessary as you say it does. It merely says how to lay them out when you use them. Bollinger (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Per both WP:USRD/STDS and WP:CASH every article where a junction list is applicable needs one. --Rschen7754 05:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Collapsible tables aren't always a good thing in general. They're not allowed for tables of information not covered in prose. (See MOS:COLLAPSE.) Since the postmile information is not covered in the prose, and not all junctions or exits along a roadway will be explicitly covered in the route description, the table is not a duplicate of information. That means it should not be collapsed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

September 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Template talk:Infobox Australian road. This comment was hardly good faith, you didn't take in the concerns I had and is supported by the other editors[1][2]. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this is applicable; I am stating that your concerns seem to be a matter of personal preference. --Rschen7754 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This warning is very much applicable as it wasn't my personal preference or point of view, it was a concern which other editors also feel but stating "This just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is very much bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
None of the example arguments at aforementioned page are made in bad faith, and I realize that you make your arguments in good faith; however, it's still personal preference. I don't see how your templated message applies (whatever happened to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars anyway? </tangent>). If you still have a concern with my comment, you are welcome to take it up at the proper Wikipedia venue. --Rschen7754 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep throwing the essays which are powerless and not enforceable, it isn't a person preference since I'm basing my concerns on the current Australian highway template, as well as other templates and the fact that highways in Australia are known by name and not the route number. Bidgee (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have a legitimate concern with my comment that has not been adequately addressed, you are welcome to take it up at the appropriate venue. Otherwise, I would suggest disengaging. --Rschen7754 09:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
And what venue would that be? Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:WQA? WP:RFC/U? WP:VPP? WP:ANI? The choice is yours, really, depending on how serious you believe this really is, and how much drama you want to generate. --Rschen7754 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A1 (Croatia)

Hi! I have posted A1 (Croatia) article for hwy peer review as I'd like to improve it sufficiently for GAN at least. I saw you reviewed similar articles before so could you please review this one as well. Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Please cease

Please cease converting infoboxes in the UK. You have done nothing but introduce inaccuracies with careless editing. By all means continue if you are going to present correct information, if you are unable to do this then I suggest you stop. If you introduce further inaccuracies into articles following this warning then I will have no choice but to take the matter further. I have fixed the inaccuracies for how, but in future I will just revert on sight when inaccuracies are introduced as it's essentially vandalism if you continue, choosing to ignore this warning. Jeni (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Along the lines of the directions, since other editors and project standards aren't as clear on the issue as USRD (always south to north or west to east with exceptions noted up front) I've been leaving the directional indicators out completely unless there was a map or other indication in the article to identify which is why. That's because so many of the articles have stated direction=East–West but the infobox is really in West–East order and the order given for the region isn't consistent. Some regions' articles varied inconsistently between East–West and West–East in displaying on the infobox without any indication that the first direction mentioned corresponded to the first terminus listed. In this case, you can't make any assumptions, even though the previous readers of the article would make the same logical assumption and have come away with the same misinformation. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Inaccuracies

Please do not introduce inaccuracies to articles as you did on A500 road and M25 motorway, this is considered to be disruptive editing. Creating links to subjects which do not accurately describe what is being shown is inappropriate. Jeni (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Fall 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
— JCbot (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Notification

As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Table format

Just a thought - you might want to make your candidate guide use "wikitable sortable" rather than just "wikitable". Happy thanksgiving for yesterday! FT2 (Talk | email) 14:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

arbcom questions

Hi Rschen, just saw your questions and answered them both, here excuse me for the delay, missed them in the melee, thankyou. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

An Invite to join the Highways WikiProject

Shortcuts
- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Highways - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Rschen7754, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the International Highways WikiProject and its new regional taskforces! The Highways WikiProject is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, or anything related to International Roads. This includes supporting existing regional road WikiProjects and fostering the development of new international highway WikiProjects. We have recently created five regional task forces focused on Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Latin America.

To improve road and highway articles, here are guidelines for B class criteria. Please add any higher GA, FA quality articles to the international roads portal. Also, please help out by inviting new or unfamiliar editors with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/New articles/Invite template.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

JCbot (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WASH activity check

Hello fellow Wikipedians! This is a message from the Washington State Highways project. You are being contacted as you are listed as a member of the WikiProject. We are conducting an activity check, and if you do not add "Aye" in the Dec 10 Check field of the participants list, you will be removed from the project participants list. Should you wish to leave the project, simply delete your user name from the list.

Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Washington State Highways at 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

NM

Hey, would you mind if I created a taskforce page for New Mexico on WP:USRD, just so I can keep track of some of the resources I need for working on the articles? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's enough activity to justify a taskforce you can go ahead and create one. Another option is dumping the links on WP:USRD/RES. --Rschen7754 23:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Fortguy (talk · contribs) has been poking his head into NM lately too, and honestly at the beginning of the new year, I am gonna want some help with a red link reduction for NM, so having basic info for NM would be useful. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The "official" process to creating a taskforce is through WP:USRD/SUB (just ignore PCB's old proposal). We haven't had a new taskforce in years, so this is a relatively new process for most of us. --Rschen7754 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Kk, request made. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Conflict of opinions over WikiProject banner tagging

I confess to becoming frustrated with the state of our projects current dilemna and have opened up an incident request at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardhere for clarification. Please take a moment and add your comments so we can get this resolved. --Kumioko (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I delinked the 22 articles our projects had in common

I was curious to see how many articles we have in common...22 including 1 book and 2 categories. I have delinked them. In the future I will make every effort not to edit any of the USRD articles. You are free to edit any WPUS articles you wish. We welcome all help. --Kumioko (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support in your voter guide, as well as your other thoughtful observations. They are appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Valiant return triple crown

Your Valiant Majesty, It gives me great pleasure to recognize Rschen7754 as a recipient of the Valiant Return Triple Crown, for earning all the elements of a Triple Crown after a legitimate return from ArbCom. Thank you for rewarding the good hopes that people had in you – you're an inspiration to others. – SMasters (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Route 27

Thank you for your GA review. In the future, it may help if you leave a note on the talk page of the nominator. I only discovered your review when I scanned the WP:GAN page and notice that the nomination was missing. Racepacket (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

WikiProject U.S. Roads Triple Crown

Your Majesty, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject U.S. Roads and its hardworking volunteers. – SMasters (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Vroom, vroom... Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the crown sign lead you on the highway to more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Ho ho ho

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Turning Ten

On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" & "Wikipedians in Southern California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle. Tinkermen (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Winter 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates

Project reports for

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—

JCbot (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Chula Vista

I saw you work with road articles and highways. I thought you would maybe be interested in getting California State Route 125 to GA maybe or atleast in good shape. It is an important to modern day Chula Vista and im trying to expand Chula Vista coverage for its centennial this year but some things i dont know much about like roads. Its ok if you dont want to work on it or interested Spongie555 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If I had the time I would, but unfortunately I'm a full-time student and don't have the time to devote to such an endeavor. :( If you want feedback or advice let me know though. --Rschen7754 09:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you think still needs to be done to get it to GA? Spongie555 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
California State Route 78 is an example of a FA and while all FAs are different, that is a decent example. The article actually isn't that bad off compared to a lot of the other CA articles. The main things I see to get to the GA standard are 1) sourcing the history, 2) writing a "Future" section dealing with the proposals to extend the highway and 3) making sure the article complies with WP:MOS, WP:USRD/STDS and the WP:GA criteria. As far as #1, since the highway was built very recently, you can probably go through newspaper articles and source most of it, you've already got a decent outline there. Same for #2, though it'll be more difficult to find. --Rschen7754 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Template:USRmap listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:USRmap. Since you had some involvement with the Template:USRmap redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Admrboltz (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Alberta highway articles

Greetings Rschen7751. When you have a moment, can you comment on my request for direction here? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

why ending in 5 and 0 only?

You reverted an edit of mine on I-90 and commented “ending in 5 or 0 only” why is that? Sara goth (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:USRD/STDS. --Rschen7754 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, Thank you for your time and the info. Sara goth (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Non-notable articles

Please see the reply that I left at User talk:Racepacket. I am waiting for references (I can't find any) and if they are not forthcoming, I will take the articles to AfD. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

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 comptonTalk 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, [3] 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

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:

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

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.[4] - 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

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

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[5][6][7][8][9]
  • 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: [10][11][12]
  • Asked others to take over the GA nomination of the netball article so he could continue to review it despite my having withdrawn it [13][14]
  • 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: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
  • 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 [24][25]
  • 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 [26]
  • 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 [27] 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[28] 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 [29]
  • 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 [30][31]
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_13&oldid=1143275455"