Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delaware Route 36

If you are not happy with my decision you can reassess the article. But don't make me do it, because I'm not gonna do it. /\ talk← Aviyal →Policy) /\

I'm just asking for you to explain your reasoning on a few aspects of your review. This is what all GAN reviewers are expected to do. --Rschen7754 21:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Talkback

Please read what I said. /\ talk← Aviyal →Policy) /\ 20:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you delete that page for me, please? /\ talk← Aviyal →Policy) /\ 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Rschen7754. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to article, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

User talk:Mickey Mouse4152

There's an unblock request here, but I don't know who the master might be so I can't really respond to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jonathan Yip. Honestly I'm quite skeptical of this, looking at some of the previous unblock requests (User talk:Shu Toddroki). --Rschen7754 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw nothing on the SPI page about this account and am not familiar enough with Yip, though I know of the case. There's only one edit and it's outside my field of expertise so I can't respond to the unblock request one way or another. Is it worthwhile asking for CU evidence? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I blocked under WP:DUCK since it follows his account naming convention, and because it's similar pages that he edits. Basically all he was doing was going around and vandalizing pages. I suppose if you wanted to leave a {{2nd chance}} on his talk it would be alright, but I doubt it would come to any good. --Rschen7754 04:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see no reason to offer them an extra second chance. I assume he's well aware of the standard offer. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems Muzemike has done a checkuser and taken away TPA. --Rschen7754 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
TY muchly. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

KML tag

I note that you tagged a couple of road articles as needing KML. What is that? --Bejnar (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's explained in the newsletter two sections up. --Rschen7754 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject tag "needs KML file" includes a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force, which page does not explain kml files. Because some (many ?) users may not be familiar with kml files, would it be a good idea to also have the tag link the term "KML file" to an appropriate explanation? --Bejnar (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome to bring this up at WT:USRD; generally consensus is needed to change the heavily protected template. --Rschen7754 01:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Internet issues

I appear to have killed my Internet access with the Mac OS X 10.7.4 update. I'm trying to get this resolved ASAP, but it may take a few hours, or if I'm unlucky, a few days. I do have Internet on other devices. Expect delays in trying to reach me; talk page stalkers, feel free to go ahead and address issues. --Rschen7754 06:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Back; seems that this was an ill-timed server issue. --Rschen7754 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Invitation

Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 18:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

GA reviews by Oakley77

I did expect to get more comments from the GA review for Cactus so I understand why it was undone. You might like to check the others listed at User:Oakley77#Good Article Designations if these still stand. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Why the GA ban?

How did I get a ban on nominating articles to become GAs? I followed procedures well. If i wasn't a major contributor to the article, I contacted the editors first. I only nominated B-class articles, and didn't do anything stupid or untrustworthy. I really don't deserve this. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Why have I been barred from participating in favorite part about Wikipedia? Oakley77 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not understand the standards or the process. GA is not a dog and pony show. It is a classification of articles that meet a certain standard. You have had the standards explained to you several times and have refused to take feedback except when threatened with sanctions. --Rschen7754 00:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
have you enacted the ban already? A user reported he successfully nominated an article. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I'll warn once, then block. --Rschen7754 21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

This is not intended as a block violation

Conversation's going nowhere; we've talked this to death. Kudos to those generating honest discussion, and shame on those leaving passive-aggresssive comments. Either bring it to ANI, or please stop complaining about it. The blocks have expired or will expire within a few hours. Time for everyone to move on. --Rschen7754 01:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After 10PM and before 11, Julzes, whom you have blocked, may only edit from a computer lacking a modern browser, so whatever I would have done would have been done in this way. I assume that if 3 reverts is policy you will also have blocked the person who failed to argue effectively for his rapid-fire reverts. The fact that an article is a feature article is not an argument that it lacks significant inaccuracies. Dark Side of the Moon was and is such as I argued on its talkpage. A review of what was said at what times on that page and the talkpage of the person who reverted me (1 person, the same number of times that I undid) will show that my attempts at discussion were peremptorily dismissed, rather than thoughtfully so. I will appeal if the other person was not also sanctioned, you can be certain of that.173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I want to thank the admins generally for being evenhanded on the matter, and also apologize if the block was intended to extend to talkpages as well (I have no way to know right now, other than by reading up on blocks).173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A block means that you cannot edit anything except your own talkpage. Please do not use an IP to evade the block again, or your IP will be blocked, and the block on your main account will start over.
The reasoning for your reverts is largely irrelevant; WP:3RR is a bright line that you cannot cross. As a personal rule, I never go over 2 reverts, even though I'm "entitled" to 3; reverting over and over again does nothing. At that point you need to stop and discuss. (Note that 3RR is not an entitlement; you can still be blocked for a slow-moving revert war even though it follows 3RR). --Rschen7754 02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754. I'm a bit concerned about your actions in this case. Given that you protected the article in question before blocking anybody, these blocks can no longer be considered preventative, as even if they were not blocked neither editor would be able to continue the edit war. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a violation of 3RR in this case, not by one revert, but by several. In my book, once 3RR is broken, that is grounds for a block, as a violation of the core rules of Wikipedia; even more so, for such a flagrant violation. Both parties should be reasonably aware of this; I did a check of the user talk page histories before blocking. The page protection is scheduled for longer than both blocks, and prevents other editors from continuing the revert war. This is about as good as any other 3RR block; are all 3RR blocks punitive then?
Even if you throw that out entirely, "I'm going to have to ask you to fuck off now." is not adhering to the civility policy. --Rschen7754 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In what way is it not adhering to the civility policy? Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"The civility policy permits blocking for "major" incivility, which includes incivility rising to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment, or outing." ... "Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace." (emphasis added) --Rschen7754 04:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
So basically it wasn't a breach of the civility policy at all, but you're determined to try and pretend that it was. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If you disagree, you are welcome to bring it up at WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 04:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Why would I bother to do that? By the time your admin mates had decided that you were right or wrong the block would have expired anyway. Parrot of Doom was quite right in saying that you are a fucking disgrace. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Er, no - "fuck off" is not blockable incivility, and most 3RR blocks don't involve protecting the article first and then later blocking both participants. I understand that you disapprove of edit-warring, but we should try to reduce heat, not increase it. Protecting the page allows the editors to work out their dispute on the talk page; blocking, without allowing that discussion to take place, has escalated the situation unnecessarily, and is unlikely to solve anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we disagree then. Also, their attempts at working the dispute out weren't very fruitful, as evidenced by the incivil comment on one side, and the evident frustration of the other. --Rschen7754 04:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Just dropping by to offer 2 pennies. I wouldn't personally have blocked if I had protected the article, there's no need to. However, I would probably have given both editors a talking to. Having said that, I've seen people being blocked in this situation many times before, it's pretty standard and fits within blocking policy as "a deterrent". Admin discretion and all that. I am surprised you didn't block the IP though and perhaps extend the block for evasion. WormTT(talk) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh and as a side note, you've indefinitely fully protected the page - yet said 72 hours on the talk page. You may want to sort that. WormTT(talk) 13:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I was actually on the fence between a final warning and blocking. However, seeing the egregious disregard for 3RR (there were 5-6 reverts) and the previous warnings for 3RR swayed me towards a block. This wasn't "oops, I did a 4th revert", this was flouting the policy. The rollback abuse would have resulted in the flag being pulled, regardless. I've fixed the protection (I thought I did already, but must not have hit save) - let me know if there's any other problems. --Rschen7754 18:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a very productive editor who only believes that they are defending featured content is one of the silliest actions an admin can take. You really need to think through the consequences of your actions and to understand that talking to editors who have a stake in this project is much better than blocking. Examining the policy at WP:BLOCK #Preliminary: Education and warnings should indicate to you that being "trigger happy" with the block button is not a recipe for improving the encyclopedia, and if the only thing that you can take from that section is the line about warnings not being "a prerequisite", then you really ought to consider why that's wrapped up in so much other advice. You should reflect on your response to Nikkimaria: "In my book, once 3RR is broken, that is grounds for a block, as a violation of the core rules of Wikipedia". Administrative duties on Wikipedia are not governed by a book, and you definitely need to develop a wider range of tools available to you if you wish your actions to uniformly improve rather than degrade the encyclopedia. Interaction skills and persuasion will get you much further than reliance on blocks. --RexxS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Blocking a very productive editor" ... let me stop you right there. This isn't an indefinite block. It's only for 31 hours. Speaking of which, why haven't you mentioned the other editor? This leads me to believe that you're promoting the concept of vested contributors, which I disagree with. I don't care how many FAs someone has written, the rules are the rules and we need to make sure they are followed, and if a block is necessary to make that happen, so be it. Honestly, a 31 hour block isn't going to kill someone - I have even been blocked for 3RR ages ago, and I'm still here. --Rschen7754 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No, don't stop right there, read what I said and don't bother putting words into my mouth. Do you have any concept of how much energy and time an editor like PoD has put into his contributions to our encyclopedia? or any concept of how your hasty action may be received by someone who puts that degree of effort into Wikipedia? "Rules are rules!" is a stupider mantra than I was expecting even from someone of your youthful inexperience. Nobody needs to make sure that rules are followed unless they suffer from OCD. Honestly, nobody has suggested that anybody will be killed by a 31 hour block. Hurt, maybe. Demotivated and annoyed, almost certainly. How many of our best editors are we going to see disillusioned with the project by blinkered admins who only see the "rules" and don't see the person, before we put a stop to it? Talk to those editors who have earned some respect and consideration, don't just leap to the block button because it's easier than discussing first. FFS, it's not that difficult.--RexxS (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Do you have any concept of how much energy and time an editor like PoD has put into his contributions to our encyclopedia?" just seems to further my perception of what you are saying. Furthermore, I put a lot of thought into whether to block in this scenario - looking at past contributions, past warning, etc. (note the 40 minute gap in between protecting and blocking). I'll also note that the header at User talk:Parrot of Doom and the attitude displayed in it certainly didn't help, either. --Rschen7754 19:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The truth is that you put no thought into it whatsoever, so why try to pretend otherwise? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would conclude that blocking in this situation, while within the letter of policy, was sub-optimal in achieving the goal of preventing further disruption. Other alternatives, such as stern warnings and page protection might have been more effective. As to the singular "fuck off", I try to fight my instinct of being too US-centric, as I accept that others may see this term less offensively than an American like myself. Just my way of trying to be objective in matters. I would have warned for it, obviously, but using the same tone of voice I would expect them to adhere to in the future. Of course, you are free to deal with situations as you see fit, but I have found this small amount of extra effort and tolerance pays dividends. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree then. Also, I'm curious as to what further disruption has occurred. I'm fully aware of Parrot of Doom's personal attacks against me, and he's not furthering his cause any by making them; they're largely confined to his talk page. Meanwhile, the other editor has taken the block somewhat positively. --Rschen7754 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd like to just comment that I've reviewed the block and I approve. The combination of edit warring and incivility warranted administrative action, in my opinion. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hardly a surprise that you agree, as you and Rschen share the same misunderstanding of "personal attack". Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe for a minute that anyone here is misunderstanding what a personal attack is. Generally in this situation, it seems that people are substituting "personal attack" for something much more juvenile. Whenever these situations arize with admins I can't help but be reminded of that quote from the Jurassic Park movie: "Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun." Friginator (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Rschen7754, the disruption I refer to is that we are all here, there is a thread at the Village Pump, another on the editor's talk page, and many people are now debating the issue instead of writing great articles. I can only speak for myself here, and hope that you can hear through the noise. I'm not questioning your right to make the block, or whether it is proper within policy, I accept that it was. I'm simply stating that a firm warning and page protection is a much better solution when we are talking about experienced editors, and this is worth considering in the future. We are all human, we all make mistakes or take things too far. I'm of the belief that you give people who have otherwise shown themselves to be trustworthy and reliable, that second chance on the spot. Now, had I given that final warning and they choose to be disruptive afterwards, then I would have no qualms with blocking instantly, and no one else would either. I am simply suggesting that sometimes it serves Wikipedia best if we draw the line in the sand in front of the editor, instead of behind them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, we'll have to agree to disagree on that matter. Thank you for sharing your opinion. As far as the people debating elsewhere, that's their own prerogative to debate a matter regarding two blocks expiring in less than 12 hours. --Rschen7754 20:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Key phrase is "people who have otherwise shown themselves to be trustworthy and reliable". -Scottywong| gossip _ 20:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Parrot of Doom isn't "trustworthy and reliable"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, this is what I spoke of before, about my concerns regarding you in dispute resolution. I came here and politely stated my concerns, did not accuse anyone of any misdeed, and the admin here has politely answered me. Parrot has never been blocked before. Is there something you wish to point out or are you simply antagonizing the situation or insinuating I lack the judgement to determine what trustworthy and reliable means? If you have specific points to make or examples to offer then please do, but I find drive-by generalizations and pot shots at my judgement without substantiation to be juvenile and unhelpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No need to take this so personally. My intention wasn't to take pot shots at your judgment, in fact nothing I've said has been intentionally directed at you. I'm simply expressing an opinion that happens to differ from yours slightly. We all have a right to our opinions, and in this particular case, I happen to agree with Rschen. -Scottywong| gossip _ 22:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It all boils down to different admins doing things different ways. If another admin had gotten to this first and erred on the side of protecting and warning, I wouldn't have gone back and blocked. As long as it's not fundamentally against policy/guideline, it's fine. Admins are not all going to agree on how to do things; that's why there's the wheel warring rule. As long as it's not fundamentally against policy/guideline, it's fine. I mean, look at ArbCom - we trust them to make binding decisions, but look at how many differing philosophies and viewpoints they have! --Rschen7754 22:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not fine. Rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men. You'll have to make your own mind up which category you wish to be in. --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fuck off" as a blockable offense requires action on your part

Hi. If you believe "fuck off" is blockable incivility, please immediately take appropriate action with respect to KoshVorlon (talk · contribs). References - "Fuck off Keifer", "it seems like it has been decided that telling a user to "fuck off" is not a personal attack.". Your immediate attention to this is requested. Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Action declined. If you notice above, I did not block solely for the incivility; it was also for edit warring. If it was just for the incivility, I probably would have declined. --Rschen7754 18:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
How interesting. Are you saying that the "fuck off" that I presented above did not also involve clear violations of guidelines, namely WP:TPG? I find it interesting that you are unwilling to enforce your views on civility against your co-civility police. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Are you saying that the "fuck off" that I presented above did not also involve clear violations of guidelines, namely WP:TPG?" - No, and I never indicated that above. However, I don't block for every clear violation of the guidelines that I see - if I did, then that would be all that I did for the rest of my life. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and I'm not bound to do anything. Furthermore, there's no way I'm going to accept this request under the circumstances - it seems like you're trying to trap me and/or prove a point, regardless of how I answer. --Rschen7754 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No, if you had warned KoshVorlon, like I did, that saying "Fuck off" was never acceptable I would have been fine with that. Of course, it appears that "fuck off," is, in fact, acceptable, if the person saying it is acceptable. I also appreciate your assumption of bad faith - that no matter how you answered, I was going to trap you. Of course, you'd assume that, because I'm not one of the people that cannot say "fuck off," and get away with it. Double standard forever! Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
... if you already warned him, then what good would my warning him do? And regarding "No, if you had warned KoshVorlon, like I did, that saying "Fuck off" was never acceptable I would have been fine with that." - considering that you used the word "blockable" twice, it's a logical assumption that you wanted a block. Furthermore, I have no idea who KoshVorlon is. --Rschen7754 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Separate close by me

Just to not engage in a lot of back and forth and make a few points, I was not willfully violating any rule I knew. I am not terribly active here, my memory is a bit poor. These combined with Parrot of Doom's apparently higher level of activity and awareness made me in the first instance wonder what 3RR said precisely. In the second instance, with the log-in, I had left town on foot with my last action a request to an admin to assist if he was interested and returned to find my account blocked, but an account I technically could not edit from in any case, and I also did not know that the limitation was my talkpage only. Plus I had had to walk in the rain on the way back into town, and did not use some sense on that regarding footwear. These are just excuses, and I realize your ire was raised a bit, but those are accurate statememnts of circumstance.

Now, I have noted a possible improvement to automation somebody might pass up the line as a recommendation so that admins need not concern themselves directly in altercations of this specific kind. I described these circumstances in pecise enough terms, I believe. If the idea is deemed worthy of consideration and there ends up being a discussion, please inform me.

There is not really any reason for me to continue here, but I would like anybody here arguing against Rschen7754 and using this case to consider that I doubt it really applies very well. What happened was two not too inexperienced editors by themselves both violated 3RR, and one cursed at the other instead of considering his side or expressing why the stewardship was theoretically correct.

I apologize if you feel drawn into some unwanted crap, Rschen7754, but I guess you do this sort of thing regularly enough.

Julzes (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Again, as I've said elsewhere, a 3RR block is not the end of the world; heck, I've gotten a 3RR block before, years ago. --Rschen7754 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
And with that, I think you've pretty much demonstrated definitively what may be the problem: your opinion is that blocks aren't a big deal. "By all means, just because it pisses people off, prevents discussion and solves nothing doesn't mean it shouldn't be done whenever the opportunity arises!" You should probably come down off your cloud and reconsider how your actions affect this community, considering how much power you have. Friginator (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this over?

If you have time, please review the removal of talkpage remarks by Parrot of Doom and recommend. I am being told that only those interested in reading removed edits can see what I say about editorial policy. Is this just fine? This seems like a history-of-wikipedia-intensive question, so perhaps it is best over and I don't know that.Julzes (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the edits in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon&diff=prev&oldid=497539374

The concern was removing my say about how he could have and wikipedia might have done things better, where I had been told not to post in 2 different relevant and easily findable places. So, I am pointing to one particular edit removal that stands out.Julzes (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I can see why the comment was removed (you mainly talked about Parrot of Doom rather than about the article; it probably came off as more of an attack). Do I agree fully with the removal and/or with how it was done? I'm not entirely sure; I'd have to muse over that a bit. But is it worth starting a revert war over? No. To be honest, I would try not to provoke Parrot of Doom any further; just come to a resolution regarding the article and move on. Other editors are talking to him about his comments; having you do it won't help matters. --Rschen7754 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note

Note: Feeling a bit under the weather, have a final and graduation all coming up soon. I'll try to respond to inquiries but it may be a while. --Rschen7754 04:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Back now. Let's just say 4 hours of sleep, plus two Mountain Dews, plus final exams, plus dehydration make for a very bad combination. --Rschen7754 06:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction

I did make one error in judgement and I wouldn't be an honorable person if I didn't correct myself here in full view. My statement that the reason for your block was the behavior of Parrot, and that the other editor was simply taken for a ride in being blocked, well that was harsh and didn't assume good faith. I assumed incorrectly. I still feel that the block wasn't the best option in this case. That we disagree on the block is fine, as we are both have the right to our opinions. I still hope to persuade you and others to at least try a warning before blocking, even when the reverts are well beyond the 3RR line, and I will continue to pursue this goal in the future. But as my statement questioned your good faith, I felt it best that I retract that portion, in as public a manner as I made it. For that, I apologize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; your correction is much appreciated. --Rschen7754 06:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Our friend is back

184.13.170.171 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)

Keeps adding fictitious roads to articles. I'd give this person another lvl4 warning, but that'd make three in a row. After a point they look toothless. –Fredddie™ 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Another note

Will be offline most of today, but if something needs my attention, email is the quickest way to contact me. --Rschen7754 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Heading to the Grand Canyon, internet will be limited. Email remains the best way to contact me. --Rschen7754 15:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

from GA to FP

Oakley77 (talk · contribs) is now working in the FP process, with commentary and a nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kim Il-sung Propaganda Painting, which will probably be shot down soon for copyright and quality reasons). Worth keeping an eye on. Drmies (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the best we can do is to inform the director (Howcheng in this case) and let them deal with it. --Rschen7754 09:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just have to say...

We're done here, closed along same reasoning as past related threads. --Rschen7754 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your block of Parrot of Doom was about as ridiculous as it can get. You have no business holding an admin bit on this project. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, though I wish you would at least share your reasoning, and/or take action on your reasoning, rather than sniping on my talk page. --Rschen7754 09:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to share my reasoning. You blocked him after protecting the page. Blocks are only supposed to be used to prevent disruption. As the page was protected, there was no possible chance of any disruption. You clearly blocked him as punishment for breaking the "rules". So either you don't understand the blocking policy, or you do understand it, but chose to block him anyway. In either case, that's completely unaccceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinion. --Rschen7754 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You asked me to explain my statement rather than "sniping". Could you provide an answer to my allegations rather than a patronizing "thank you"? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have already given it at other places, repeatedly. And no, I do not plan on resigning. You are welcome to start a recall, or file an arbitration request if you so please. --Rschen7754 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oakley77

As Oakley77 is still interested in the GA and given his restrictions, I think I have wandered into an area where I will suggest things he can work on and give an idea as to what is ready, what is not, shoot down articles he thinks are ready but are not and point him at articles that I'm going to take to GA but could use some extra eyes. If any of my articles get reviewed, I might encourage him to fix them but not comment on the GAN itself. If this violates the community ban from GA, please let me know. (I kind of selfishly wouldn't mind extra eyes and hands on a few of my articles.) --LauraHale (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I could see this working out positively. As long as he doesn't violate the letter of the ban and someone's keeping an eye on the situation, I for one don't mind, and then he might be able to have the restrictions lifted eventually. --Rschen7754 01:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It is the spirit that is more of an issue. If he wants to work on articles to get them ready to nominating them... but he has yet to find one I would be comfortable doing. (And unless he suddenly developing an interest in women's sport, I'm not going to put in the work to improve his articles.) He suggested men's football articles that one look at them and I was pretty much dinging Bs back to Cs. (Completely uncited sections for a number of them. I know what a national football team article GA vaguely looks like with out spending more than five minutes.) I don't mind helping him and nominating if I think I can do it... but sport articles take FOREVER to get through. Could you suggest to him though that this might be the best way to get the restriction lifted? --LauraHale (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he's made a mess of Ontario Highway 21. It seems that you've started talking to him, so I won't say anything, but let me know if I need to. --Rschen7754 08:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh ick. :( How bad a mess? I'm hoping he can do enough changes to begin to understand these things. They aren't difficult theoretically. Just annoying. The sourcing one is probably one of the things he NEEDS to learn the most. If he can't grasp this, he shouldn't be allowed near GA. --LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
He went through and applied the changes suggested blindly, and sometimes incorrectly. As you may know, GAN is having a review drive, which means a lot of poor reviews taking place. --Rschen7754 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Looked at the one edit he did to the Jane Moran article. Not theoretically bad, but it is in the completely wrong section. Left a comment there. I know about the review drive but as sports still seems endlessly long, haven't paid much attention other than to think about proposing an alternative reviewing drive. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012


GAN: California State Route 188

Hello, I have reviewed the California State Route 188 article for GA status and I have found one problem with the article. Please see the review page for more details. The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited California State Route 188, 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) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

SR-70

Rschen, I see you're working on California State Route 70. Yhis has been on my get around to it list for some time. Most the pics currently on the article were taken by me. About 2 years ago I did this drive again with a better camera, intending to upload new pics. However, I forgot about this until your work reminded me. I'll try to get some uploaded over the weekend. Currently there is a string of stub articles for the various features required to build the rail line paralleling the road. Without making an opinion on the existance or organization of these articles, you may want to check them for pics, as these pics may not be on commons. i.e. Pulga Bridges, Tobin Bridges, Keddie Wye, Williams Loop, Spring Garden Tunnel, Clio Tressle, Beckwourth Pass etc.

On a personal note. I haven't done this roadtrip in at least a year. I miss it, it's a neat drive. Dave (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Honestly, I've just been finding articles that seem decent, polishing them, and sending them to GAN. Eventually I'll run out and have to do some more work, but for now, it's great. :) --Rschen7754 00:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of California State Route 70

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the issues have been addressed, so I passed the article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

File:Map of USRD rel WW alt 4.svg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Map of USRD rel WW alt 4.svg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, it's a self-created graphic... --Rschen7754 19:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Me and the GAN Process

I know you are familiar with me, I was recently all but banned from the GAN process. A few days after that sentence, an editor came to me and offered to mentor me in the GAN process. She has sort of backed out of this promise, and is not really my mentor anymore. One of the things we had agreed on, or at least compromised on, it that we would work together on a GAN nomination. What I mean by this is she would nominate an article, I would make the edits the reviewer requests, but she would physically sign them on the review page. I wondered, since you suggested the mentoring idea to here, if you could possibly partake in this system with me. I would be very grateful, and I also believe this would be great "ammunition" for my possible reinstatement into the GAN process. Thanks alot, Oakley77 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have talked to LauraHale. She is willing to help you iff (if and ONLY if) you are willing to do what she suggests, sticking to the areas. If you won't, and you go off to other topics, what good is the mentorship?
Furthermore, the copyright thing is concerning. Do you realize that allowing copyrighted text onto Wikipedia opens the door for Wikipedia to get sued? If you keep doing this, you could be blocked indefinitely, and get LauraHale in trouble.
Look, editing Wikipedia is not all fun and games. There's work involved. There are many small tasks that need to be done that do not require a lot of work. However, you are trying to write Good Articles, which requires an awful lot of work. We banned you from GAN because you were trying to get the green icon on articles that did not meet the standard. I think you really need to reevaluate why you are here. Do you want to write Good Articles or good articles? If it's the former, then I think you need to find a new hobby. (And don't keep shifting to AFC, or FAC, or FLC, as you keep getting banned from each process. If we have to keep banning you from the tasks you take on, we might as well just ban you from the project entirely).
I know this is a bit harsh, but you need to change your editing habits now, or things will go downhill from here very quickly. Editors are starting to get quite frustrated with you. --Rschen7754 05:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This. I do not want to mentor someone who knowingly ignored copyvios or does not care to know enough as to why this is a problem. Unless specifically asked, the GAs I have opened with reviews, it is hard to see edits when no notification has been given to me. If Oakley wants my assistance, it can at this point be for water polo only with the articles listed. China is no. Men's football is no. The water polo articles have clearly defined areas to improve and 11 models of successful passes. I can adequately mentor there. Others, not so much. It was pretty much always this as take it or leave it and Oakley wants to leave it, which is great but gets him no closer to GAN. Every suggestion of a non-ready article puts him further back. --LauraHale (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

re GAN California State Route 55

Hi,

I've reviewed your GAN and made a few comments at Talk:California State Route 55/GA1. Most pressing is the formating of the citations that are bare urls.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

DYK nomination of Idaho State Highway 50

Hello! Your submission of Idaho State Highway 50 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

needskml

Thanks for telling me. I didn't realize that, and that will save me a lot of time. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasted a few days and 3000 edits doing the same back in May. :( --Rschen7754 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Drama?

I have tried and failed to resolve the problem. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Rschen7754 03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe its a legitimate concern to have an editor get a block when they've done nothing wrong. I don't see how bringing that to AN/I constitutes drama. I've been very patient and listened to the replies and asked for it to be justified under policy and under the reasons that have been given. So far, I've seen a lot of people who just want to avoid this, but if we wanted to avoid this we shouldn't have been discussing the editor in the first place. I intend to continue to be professional, so I don't see where drama lives here unless other folks can't stay professional as well. -- Avanu (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK. Basically, enough admins have said that they will not be overturning the block, so continuing to argue it in front of a bunch of administrators when they have already said no is borderline disruptive. It boils down to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; you are refusing to listen to what other editors are saying. Either drop it entirely, or escalate the problem to people who can actually do something, like WP:RFAR. Taking the middle ground is not going to be helpful here, and any admin who unblocks at this point risks getting their bits pulled for wheel warring against a consensus.
As a side note, I have noticed that you have posted on ANI several times lately, trying to act as a public defender for other editors, as if you are trying to defend against a corrupt system. Forgive me if I haven't read closely enough, but it comes off to me as a big "ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!" witch hunt. Most admins are not corrupt, and the ones that are are getting removed more and more quickly in arbitration cases. I would advise you not to take this tack, but to go work on editing articles instead; otherwise, at best you will lose respect with the community; at worst, you could face sanctions (referencing MBisanz' comments to you). Let other people defend themselves if they so wish. It's a lot easier for everyone that way. --Rschen7754 03:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Do things right and I won't have to defend anyone. Roger took 1 minute to correct a bad block. The same thing is obvious here. Do things right or don't do them. Unblock the guy, give him time to response, and do it right.
You don't have to use the mop, you don't have to strike a guy down who is editing productively. "ZOMG" isn't the right term here. We have policies that are clear. We have pillars that are clear. Admins aren't above policy any more than editors are. If you think they should get a pass because they have a bit, then why do we even write policy down at all?
The whole thing is laughable because it would take so little to make this right and settle my concerns and others' concerns. But we have admins who simply don't see any problem at all even when policy is right there in black and white. Either policy applies evenly to all, or we don't have policy anymore. We have arbitrary enforcement, and that's not why we pick admins for this position of responsibility. -- Avanu (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for Idaho State Highway 50

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Wikipedia-en-roads

Awesome, thanks! :D RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Thanks!!!

Thanks for all the KML files. This rocks! Dave (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm making them for all the FA and A class articles, in response to the situation at USRD. --Rschen7754 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

KMLs

Thanks for telling me. I thought the category had just been updating slowly until I realized you had been forcing it to update. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely a little miffed that I went to the trouble of fixing the template, only to have it not do everything automatically. Well, at least we got the 3,000 missing articles tagged... --Rschen7754 08:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Help

I think I will never be editing Wikipedia again with this account.So, I am requesting you to block my account permanently to avoid misuse. BiologyArtist (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't do self-requested blocks. You may want to check Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks to find ones that do; however, they may decline due to your low edit count. --Rschen7754 07:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Initiative

Please read - but you probably did? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Granted, I didn't take a close enough look at that, but what concerns me is [1]. In the request though, I tried to focus on the allegations that need to be resolved; people can say whatever they want in the evidence. --Rschen7754 09:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Granted, that went too far, regarding the procedure, - also some people can't take if their mistakes are corrected. But if you want my POV: the person serving the quality of FAs and TFAs best is Br'er Rabbit. Look at his contributions in getting them referenced, and perhaps at the number of thanks on his talk (since May that is), I stopped counting at 100, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
re this, what exactly has Sandy "resigned" from? pablo 10:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As Featured Article Delegate (don't ask me what that is, though), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read before you post, - if there are facts you don't have to assume ;)

ps: see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. --Rschen7754 06:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried to be polite. You said "seems to be on a Wikibreak". You could read that he announced that break and doesn't respond to email, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It's more word choice, if anything. I read his comment about him going on a break and was fully aware. I will note that from anecdotal experience, just because someone says they are on a Wikibreak doesn't mean that they stop editing. --Rschen7754 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I easily take things too literally, English is not my first language. So, if I read "seems" I think the speaker doesn't "know". - The break was also mentioned here just now, - "The Games must go on" (said Avery Brundage, TFA suggestion for 6 Sept) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, I tend to phrase my conversational speech with less confidence than I actually have. --Rschen7754 06:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
For better understanding: you were "fully aware" of the vacation when you started the initiative?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but at that point nobody knew (and still nobody knows) for how long he would be gone, and the debates were also continuing. --Rschen7754 08:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited California State Route 198, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Valley (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) 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The majority of the voting arbitrators indicated that as presented, there was not a case for the committee, although they did outline some suggestions. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California State Route 52, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Right of way (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) 11:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Eustress talk 22:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Stress

I'm dealing with high amounts of stress IRL right now; I may be able to respond to quick queries, but not anything complicated; you may want to consider asking someone else. --Rschen7754 17:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: still stressed, and there may be very long periods when I am away from the computer. --Rschen7754 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: it's finally over, but I'm physically worn out, and won't be back in full force until tomorrow. --Rschen7754 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

AWB rev8323

AWB version 5.3.1.0 is outdated. We provide AWB v. 5.3.1.2 (rev8323) at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ which corrects all known bugs and runs faster. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB run

Hey, did you realize your AWB is set to have an edit summary saying "Add KML tag" instead of "Add jctint tag"? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

About 7000 edits later, no. :( Epic fail. Thanks! --Rschen7754 08:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

USRD Summer 2012 Newsletter

Volume 5, Issue 3 • Summer 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock of Oakley77

May wish to take a look at Oakley777's contribs. I won't file an SPI because it may appear that I am working against him when he came to me to ask for improvements to Chongqing. GotR Talk 02:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sent it to SPI. I could have done a duck block, but want this on the record. --Rschen7754 06:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And blocked by Dennis Brown. --Rschen7754 18:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

BAHRAIN Review

I rescind and it was 27 days, not 2 months, not even 1 month as the shortest calender month is 28 days. There is more effective tactics than goading. Might wanna review this Civility, good article. 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Arbcom 2012 questions

Here are the questions that I plan to ask this year at the ArbCom elections: User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2012. Feedback would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 04:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Sandbox

Thanks! I was actually done with that anyways, but had no reason to delete it yet.--intelati/talk 00:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied

To your comment at the DR RFC. Just FYI. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Rschen7754. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:

violates WP:USSH[2]

I'm not going to argue with you, and I accept that the MOS has a recommended guideline for naming conventions, however, as you probably already know (per State highways in California) the official name was State Highway Route 237. My question therefore is, why do Wikipedia naming conventions conflict with the official name? That seems to miss the entire point. There is never anything wrong with using an official name. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because Caltrans, the state department of transportation in charge of maintaining and constructing the highways, only refers to them as "State Route x", which is the official name. --Rschen7754 23:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Two things: in the article State highways in California, it says the name is "officially State Highway Route". Is that true or false? And, why do official state documents refer to it in that way?[3] Note, I'm just inquiring; this has no bearing on the review at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"Officially" can refer to two things here. The California State Legislature and the California Department of Transportation are two different entities. But regardless of that, in response to your initial question, "why do Wikipedia naming conventions conflict with the official name?" WP:COMMONNAME - nobody actually uses that name since there's redundancy. --Rschen7754 23:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is a bit confusing. Apparently, California State Route 237 is not the route we are talking about but a completely different highway. Is there a way to make this clear in the article? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Editing. That's the other thing, before 1964 CA used an entirely different numbering system, and I think they may have called the routes something different too. --Rschen7754 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That is helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_15&oldid=1144422583"