User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

SPUI at it again...

Please visit the talk page of California State Route 15. SPUI has been moving the article and has now proposed the current CA routebox used to great effect and maintained by dozens for deletion claiming it's too long... He wants to replace it with a short uninformative POS box.JohnnyBGood 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Your voice might be helpful in this debate man. They're getting crazy.Gateman1997 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We are fast approaching RFC time for SPUI don't you think? He's been given ample warning and continues to act unilaterally. Gateman1997 05:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then we should bring him there again. I've witness multiple violations of WP:CIV, WP:3RR, and edit warring on his part today. I think it's time he was thrown to them and hopefully gets a nice long vacation. He's doing nothing to improve the project lately.Gateman1997 05:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree you're probably too close to this to impartially rule, even though I do trust your judgement. However if you could bring this to the ArbCom's attention it may do some good here. He's moved well beyond "disruptive" and into purposely destructive. Not to mention rude and uncouth.Gateman1997 05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably, but be sure to make note of his current probational status.Gateman1997 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • He also seems to be following the same MO in his actions on I-95 exit list. The article survived AfD this week, yet he's unilaterally turned the article into a redirect to I-95, because he doesn't think it can be salvaged without a full rewrite. Every time it gets restored, he reverts to his redirect. He's missed 3RR by the barest of time margins, with four reverts over the last thirty-some hours. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm looking at WP:AN/I right now. That looks to be the more valid venue for pursuing this. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious admin help is out of the question, and SPUI won't budge on using his userbox (I think he takes affront that we don't like his box rather then editing the project box). I think our only recourse at this time is to continue to revert him if he makes unilateral changes until enough time or incivility has passed for an RFC.Gateman1997 03:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • We should make a few edits to the project box and see if that placates the guy. Maybe remove the legend section and merge the "state law" section into the route number in the box?Gateman1997 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 15 and Interstate 605 (California)

Can you set these two up for protection from SPUI? He's reverting both to his userbox which has been rejected thus far by consensus.JohnnyBGood 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!!!

SPUI is unilaterally moving CA 283, CA 99, and also placing his info box on those pages and BUS 80 in Sacramento and I-605. Can't we RFC this guy?JohnnyBGood 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's moved into other articles as well. I too would support an RFC or Arbcom at this stage. We've got several ongoing discussions he's been invited to join but refuses to. Time to get higher powers involved.Gateman1997 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. These moves, and his insistence now on making redirects and links for "CityName (ST)" contrary to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America is unacceptable.
I don't have the time to put this evidence together, but I've certainly seen enough violations of (WP:NPA), (WP:CON), and (WP:CIVIL) to warrant it. --Censorwolf 19:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Sorry = I've noticed. Again via the same culprit. I will see if I can add my voice to the unblocking chorus. --Censorwolf 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did a lot of work on those articles and felt a little violated. Daniel Case 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing. I see no solution without presenting a full case history and intervention from higher powers. This editor appears to think that he alone can decide how parts of WP will be built. --Censorwolf 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Good. I see this will take a while. Meanwhile we plod on. --Censorwolf 03:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there is a like mind. [[1]] --Censorwolf 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that would be that easy. That's how WP editors should work together. I was beginning to lose faith. No comments about body parts being eaten... --Censorwolf 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

CA 85

Hi, just letting you know I modified CA 85 with the jerk's infobox but w/ all junctions. Let me know what you think. If he objects to THAT then we should just keep resisting him because if he's not taking that he's just being unreasonable to the extreme. We may even be able to put the postmiles in there.JohnnyBGood 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it with a few changes real fast, let me know what you think. I'm just running this through in anticipation of the worst. However for now I'm in favor of not backing down for sure.JohnnyBGood 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


California State Routes

Do you know why they're currently at "California State Route X"? I mass-moved them about a year ago from "California State Highway X". There were some complaints, but, except for SR 17, it settled down. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there wasn't any consensus. I just came in and decided to move them. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list

Why did you revert this to its forked version? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Moves

Only if you stop making controversial moves without consensus. Pot kettle black. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut state routes

Sorry, I didn't know that there was this highway naming issue. Since I created 95% of the existing pages, I thought I would go ahead and move them to the name ConnDOT and the news media use. I have already finished moving all the existing pages but if you want to revert them, then go ahead. So which name should I use for newly created articles? Polaron 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Med Cabal

Thank you for doing the legwork (fingerwork? :) ) to get the case started. I hate that it came to it, but his edits were getting tedious to deal with and standing in the way of progress.

Call me old school, I guess. :) I came of age on Usenet, where there was a defined process for creating or renaming newsgroups: a Request For Discussion, where the idea was presented, and if it looked like it was getting favourable reception, then a Call For Votes, which was a straight up/down vote, and only then acting on the proposal, if it passed the vote. So I'm used to the idea of discussing first and then acting along the lines of what the prescribed majority favor doing. It looks like the AfD process is more of a CFV with a RFD interwoven (see my AfD nom of polylogue), and I can adapt to that. But when SPUI's idea loses the vote, but he sends the control message anyway...well, that's where we are now. —C.Fred (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all your help with this. I really do appreciate all you did both for myself and the Routes as a whole.Gateman1997 04:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good work putting this together. Keep focused on the issue of whether consensus building should be applied and procedures are being followed. --Censorwolf 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case

The mediation case form quite clearly asks if you would be willing to mediate in a different case. Your answer seems to imply that you expect to mediate in the same case (which you could without the Mediation Cabal, so why should be ask that?). Would you be willing to mediate in a different case? Please fill out the form accordingly. Thank you. --Fasten 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For all your help getting me back. Also, keep up the good fight. We can't let SPUI bulldoze the 5 or 6 of us now resisting him.JohnnyBGood 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

List of State Highway Routes in California?

He's now moved this article to State Highway Routes? And he claims there is evidence for the name on the Highway codes page... however I find none. I believe we have another incorrect unilateral move by the jerk.JohnnyBGood 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that he's branched into NY routes w/o consensus I think it's RFC time. I've personally had just about enough.JohnnyBGood 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

State pages

There is certainly enough to say about the individual states for their own articles. It's a clear case of summary style. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I just created those two as redirects to the main article. Interstate 78 is one I redid a while ago, and I don't think it's too long for one article. Same thing for Interstate 76. But for major ones like I-10, I-80 and I-95, there is too much for a single article. These are, after all, individual state highways (meaning state-maintained roads, not state-numbered roads) that share a number and marker across state lines. Interstate 95 in New Jersey is a good example of a decent-length article for a small state. That article is 17 KB, over half the "recommended" size. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: SPUI

Maybe so. But that doesn't mean he should be blocked indefintely, and the block was a false positive from a bot designed to stop vandalism.--Sean Black (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Congratulations!!! I hereby award a spinning Barnstar to User:Rschen7754 for his dedication to maintaining California state route articles in their consensus defined form and at their consensus defined names. Keep up the good work, and don't let User:SPUI get you down. --JohnnyBGood 19:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to unblock the IP autoblock too so he can continue the edit war :P

  1. 17:02, 17 March 2006, Freakofnurture (Talk) blocked #120278 (expires 17:01, 18 March 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JohnnyBGood". The reason given for JohnnyBGood's block is: "pagemove...".)
  2. 17:02, 17 March 2006, Freakofnurture (Talk) blocked #120277 (expires 17:01, 18 March 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JohnnyBGood". The reason given for JohnnyBGood's block is: "pagemove...".)

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

I don't know what you mean by "until the mediation case goes through" - I don't think there is any defined end to the mediation. I will continue to apply naming conventions as I see fit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I've been fixing double redirects. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing's keeping you from working on content. I certainly have been: Valley Boulevard, Interstate 10 in California, etc. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't moved and of the state articles in a few days and frankly I'm through with them, I've been meaning to take myself of the wikiproject page and haven't gotten around to it. I'll of course continue to support any mediation attempts you make Rschen... but frankly SPUI doesn't give a damn about them as evidenced by his comments above. So until that changes or there is a major escalation of this to Arbcom or RFC, this isn't worth my energy anymore. Gateman1997 01:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there is always the RFC or ArbCom option. It's obvious all else has failed. I'd definitely add my two cents to any discussion at either.Gateman1997 02:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV and User:SPUI

Other than the South Park humor, you said something about reverting some Mediation cabal pages, can you show me some diffs? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to give him a final warning, because I'm not sure if he was aware that some people might take the "profit" joke seriously (after all, it's not in the main namespace). But once I sent it, Nlu blocked him and you know the rest. About the {{fact}} template, it isn't like he completely deleted the diffs. But he could have found a better way of replying back to them. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Heavy-handedness

Nice job using a standard vandal warning on SPUI's talk page. Is there any particular reason you felt that you couldn't write a personal message, asking him to explain, instead of just accusing him of vandalism? Also, why did you feel it neccesary to laud your status as an admin in this edit? At any rate, SPUI's attempt at humour was not vandalism; the Project space is full of humour (check Category:Wikipedia humor if you don't believe me), and it was not harmful. Regards, Alphax τεχ 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'd say an RFC is warranted. He's gone over the line. And for Alphax, there is no humor involved in this instance and SPUI should be smart enough to recognize that. He's been atagonizing that same wikiproject for weeks.Gateman1997 09:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
See posts at WP:AN/I. It appears that SPUI is not a supporter of this WikiProject's current standards, and may have been trying to use this as a satire. As for the diff above, I needed to establish that I am an admin so other people know that I'm not some weirdo who created their account fifteen minutes before. People's opinions are mixed on this issue, and your revert to SPUI's version is just bad. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Sceptre (Talk) 13:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, if you look at the diff, I was reverting bad-faith edits, which I consider vandalism. Opinions at WP:AN/I are mixed about this, some calling it vandalism, some not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow sorry bout that man. I see it was a sock of SPUI got you blocked too.JohnnyBGood 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CA 2

Please visit California State Route 2 and vote on the page move.JohnnyBGood 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to give Alphax a vandalism warning...

omg obvious vandalism --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief

Here, JDoorjam attempted to unblock SPUI, but messed up, due to a duplicated User: prefix. SPUI notices this, and uses his other account to notify JDoorjam of this. Then Nlu blocks Sockenpuppe, as a "Sockpuppet used to evade block".

Tell me if this makes any sense to you, because it sure as hell doesn't to me. Unlike, for example, JohnnyBGood, Sockenpuppe is not used for edit warring, vote stacking, etc., and Sockenpuppe is also openly identified by its owner, thus according to WP:SOCK and common sense, it is not an abusive sockpuppet. — Mar. 21, '06 [05:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>

For another example, see User:Freaksock. No edits outside userspace and the sandbox. Used for testing purposes only. — Mar. 21, '06 [05:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I'm not seeing a personal attack in that section, are you? — Mar. 21, '06 [05:57] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Can you be any less vague? — Mar. 21, '06 [06:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Ok, you've stated how you feel about the situation, yes, but which words, sentences, or paragraphs are you referring to??? — Mar. 21, '06 [06:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>

What can I do... ?

Anything I can do I will. I too have had enough of SPUI's flippant crap, but I don't know what I can add. Last time I tried opening my mouth I got banned indefinitely.Gateman1997 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The JohnnyBGood account had never previously edited my talk page prior to 00:13, March 21, 2006, and there was no reason for its watchlist to contain user talk:freakofnurture. SPUI posted to my talk page at 00:09, March 21, 2006 and JohnnyBGood showed up exactly 4 minutes later to discredit SPUI! It scared the hell out of me when I saw it. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>

It still wouldn't make any sense. The last time I posted an actual comment at User talk:SPUI was 16:40, December 26, 2005, over a month before the JohnnyBGood account was created. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:06] <freakofnurxture|talk>

RFC

We've been directed by admins at WP:AN/I to initiate and RFC regarding the naming of CA Routes. Any further moves will bring any of us a block. Frankly I'm willing to let them sit where they are for a few weeks just to piss SPUI off since he's banned from moving them too.JohnnyBGood 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you mentioned to Zscout370 that you were going to collect opinions about an RFC... I'm only peripherally involved in the matter, but I would strongly suggest that this needs to go directly to a user conduct RFC against SPUI. Trying to put together an article RFC would just muddy the waters further. If you'd like help drafting it, let me know. --phh 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case U.S. Roads

If you need a fast assignment of a mediator it generally helps when you are willing to mediate in a different case. You state that you would prefer not to because of limited time and subject expertise. A mediator should, of course, have some time for mediation but limited subject expertise for a yet unknown subject is a dubious argument. If you can't mediate yourself maybe somebody else interested in the case would be willing to mediate and thereby increase your chance to get a mediator fast. --Fasten 11:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You know it will happen eventually. But right now I'm only making redirects from the correct names. Atanamir asked me to help him figure out how the state highway system works, and I find the best way to do that is to do a bit of grunt work first. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where? He's under orders not too and can be banned if he does.Gateman1997 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Block him. He's been warned by two other admins at WP:AN/I. We can sort it out later.Gateman1997 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
We need an RFC now. This needs to be settled once and for all. And if he changes anything in the interim we have block consensus at WP:AN/I from two independent admins.Gateman1997 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

I've blocked SPUI from making any transportation-related moves for 48 hours. I urge you not to revert his moves while this gets discussed. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to start an RFC post haste. I know it's risky, but at this point... I don't think we have anything to loose.Gateman1997 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd favor both running concurrently. His behaviour has been untennable, however he seems to have a fair amount of supporters for him personally if not for his position.Gateman1997 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Rschen

There is a set of compromise offers on the Mediation page. I'm going to ask you nicely. Could you please make no more edits to state route pages until we can achieve a sort of consensus? Thanks in advance. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the ambiguity, I meant related to the dispute, you're more than welcome to do the other stuff you normally would. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 04:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Washington infobox

Can you respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways#Question for those who want milepost information? Thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several threads I'd like to address, so I'm going to lump them all into one.
  • Short version: SPUI's being a bit of a pig but he appears mostly correct and you are making it worse.
  • Longer version: The mass page moves are all just regular edits, albiet quite a lot of them. SPUI is combative and flares up when provoked but every time some attempt at compromise has been made he's downed tools on the flame war and gotten right back to work. You (and Gateman) have been talking about mass page protections and RfC's and every other form of punishment but haven't spent much time editing while cool.
I'm pleased by the tone of the most recent edits on the page, however. With regards to the (provocative) additions of the {{fact}} template is to provide a source that supports the statement. That would shut him up faster than just complaining about the template.
brenneman{L} 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding User:SPUI's disruptive behavior. You may comment or provide additional evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI. —phh 02:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. But where do I add my statements? I pretty much agree with yours, but just wanted to provide support... also there's SPUI's move log and SPUI's block log. You can add that to evidence. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
People sometimes add comments and additional details after their signatures when certifying the dispute; I don't think that would be too irregular. --phh 03:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I add the above links myself? Also added an inside view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Your "inside view" is well put. --phh 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI has removed all the US Road portal links ("not updated in over a month". I thought it was decided that they were to stay.Rt66lt 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

List of State Routes in Delaware

He moved the artcilces as well. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh

Nice, threats... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Were you going to block PHenry (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) as well, or does this whole "no mass move" thing only apply to people you disagree with? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree in this case. However I thought the page move ban was for CA routes not WA routes? JohnnyBGood 01:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I interpret it as any mass highway moves. Regardless, it disrupts Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just foolish. If someone vandalizes pages, it should be permissible to restore them to their pre-vandalized state. I mean, duh!! Otherwise we just reward anyone who has the persistence to move a few pages at a time in between blocks. --phh 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it's nothing personal, and that you didn't make the ruling. I just think it's foolish. No offense intended. --phh 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You've got some funny ideas about vandalism. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case, you've got some funny ideas about bad faith. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the situation. You know that your mass page moves will cause many people to be upset, and you choose to do it anyway. You know that you will probably be reverted too. How is that not bad faith? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Because it's being done to improve the encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Not really... you're destroying the power of consensus by doing these moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about my moves, actually, stick with the subject. My moves were not made in bad faith, nor were they vandalism as PHenry so wonderfully declared. Now, how do you explain his comment re: vandalism? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with labeling them "vandalism", but doing something you know will cause problems is bad faith. Such as AFDing a popular page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes me want to vomit

The way they're hand holding SPUI especially after the way they treated me, yourself and Gateman. Especially how I was permbanned even though truth and evidence were on my side. I'm starting to wonder if this project is anything but a who knows who club. I could get 50,000 edits pretty quick too making the type of crap redirect edits he does.JohnnyBGood 21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

And there is nothing wrong with moving pages to the proper name - the statement is that in cases where this has already happened and a revert war has started, continuing that revert war can be disruption. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Gateman1997? He's been mass-moving County Route pages (to correct names). [2] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
...use some common sense. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress

Sorry to hear that you are stressed. I hope everything works out for the better - in the meantime, sit back with a relaxing cup of coffee. -- Natalya 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly percolated coffee, Esperanza's own blend.
Perfectly percolated coffee, Esperanza's own blend.

RI

Quite possibly. Please don't interfere. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

re: RFC

it's all opinionated. As evidenced in the many polls for this subject, people are even split over it. the current system was also invented by spui (california state route X). Before you came / before any of this WP stuff was started the articles were all over the place; and they wereo nly brought together though one mass page move by spui. To me, the current one is spui realising he made a mistake in the current system and trying to correct it. (After all, in the law, it IS 'state route X' - our use of california before it is purely just for disambiguation purposes). So, I am on SPUI's side in all this; he's just doing the same thing he did before to improve the overall quality of the articles, except now there's too mnay people and some are unwilling to change. That's my opinion. Anyways, there doesn't seem to be any alternative emerging either. atanamir 23:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I moved colorado to the "better" format, is this okay with you?

  • it's the same with CA/17, though -- because of a few holdouts, that article will continually be stuck on a naming convention that we know to be less effective. That's basically how i see this dispute. atanamir 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • wasn't that dispute there just with the infobox? atanamir 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you started a poll anywhere for the naming convention? I've been looking for it without much success. All the concentration right now seems to be on SPUI and not what matters: a good naming convention. atanamir 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

re: colorado

No one has touched this since i made the list, so it's innocuous. That's why I was 'bold' and moved it. atanamir 23:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I won't move any article where there's been recent activity. I only did so with colorado because I made the list, and there's only been a ocuple edits (adding and moreving and adding and removing the us roads portal link); so i felt it was fine. I'm planning on doing sigificant work in colorado soon though... california has too much politics around it now. atanamir 00:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There. I moved them all back. Happy? Improvement is hindered once again. atanamir 00:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


HDD

The timeline looks great and I'd be happy to pitch in however I can. I do think it'll be important to involve, sigh, SPUI and his supporters from this point forward as equal co-developers of the process, rather than just as active and willing participants... not just so they won't complain, but because it's the right thing to do. I really, really hope this works. --phh 01:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bon appétit. --phh 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like overdesigning the process. Are you going to get 5 impartial admins to play along? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has the same problems as any poll - too much groupthink. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We can move them to the correct names, for one. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously not "what everyone else wants". --SPUI (talk - RFC) 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

And like I said, if he wasn't constantly hassled by people such as yourself, he'd be far over 100,000 by now. The best way you can maintain some order is by resigning as an admin. You are living proof that there are no rules left on Wikipedia that cannot be twisted to the point where they are meaningless or paradoxical. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, why do you? If you want mediation, let me know. I know SPUI well, and I hate seeing ignorance and animosity where I can stop it, but I don't take kindly to those trying to bully people, which is what I see you as doing to SPUI. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, i'd like the chance to be a third party here, I feel a ray of sunshine in the overwhelming bleakness I see around here all the time. You both seem to be seeing in each other what the other seems to see: an unfeeling, arrogant, agressor. I've known SPUI, if you don't try to "convert" him, he'll treat you fine from what i've seen. And from a looking at a few of your outside contribs, you seem like an alright person too, thus making me come to that conclusion above. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 19:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: SPUI's RfC.

I'll look into it when I get a chance. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, I'm so tempted to recluse from this whole situation. I understand the idea of SPUI changing the pages in Rhode Island, since he's practically encouraged by the lead wikiproject guy there. But he needs to chill with the whole situation. I'm seriously NOT going to be happy if this thing goes to ArbCom. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Reworded my vote. IMHO It's only bad if someone actively tries to reverse his actions, as with WP:WASH and WP:CASH. What I don't want out of this whole thing is half the articles in a state go by "XX state route YY" and the other half "State Route YY (XX)" LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

...highway names...

So it appears that it was decided that the NCs will be by state, and since neither Virginia nor North Carolina have issues with the NCs, and are in peace right now, that I don't have to worry about it, correct? And I can go on with my happy life, correct? If so, great. And by the way, great job moderating and handling all the situations. --MPD01605 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

indiana

You moved it to List of Indiana State Highways yourself and said if anyone wants to do route, then do it. IDOT calls them state roads, so i moved it to state roads for the same reason that you said someone could move it to route. atanamir 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "Moving to List of Indiana State Highways. If someone wants to move to Routes go ahead though, but we need the caps. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)"
  • I didn't do parentheses. atanamir 03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

okay seriously

okay, your little game has gone long enough. Please show one source where it says the official name IS California State Route, because ALL THE SOURCES that have been shown ALL say State Route X or Route X. Here's your chance to convince me. ONE SOURCE SOMEWHERE in the laws that say "California STate Route X is from balh blah blah". If you want a source wher it's State Route X, look at any of the links that SPUI has shown. They all say State Route X or Route X. I really don't know where you got this crazy idea that the government is too "lazy" to write out california. atanamir 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • the PARENTHESIS IS FOR DISAMBIGUATION. Who says The X Files (Film)? or The x Files (TV series)? PARENS IS hOW WIKI DOES DISAMBIGUAITON. Alos, please show me where on the caltrans site it says California STate Route X and not just "state route X" or "Route X". atanamir 21:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Also i'm only using the acutal government pages as sources. AA Roads and a lot of indepedent pages, for any state, most liekly use the wrong way. A lot of pages are just "California Highways" or something like that. atanamir 21:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll give you credit for that source. At the same time, a google search for "State Route" site:dot.ca.gov will yield 138,000 results, whereas "Califonria State Route" site:dot.ca.gov will yield only 138 results. Even if you take out the 138 results for "California State Route" (Because the results will be overlapping), the latter still yields a lot more than "california state route". atanamir 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Acutally, on the page you've sent me to, everything below 23 is titled "SR-23 (directionbound)" I know this is a minority; but it's building on my previous post as well. atanamir 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Also, the ones that are titled SR-xx have been updated more recently (with a new design as well). It seems Caltrans, too, is fixing the erroneous title. atanamir 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
            • [3] okay, go here first. Then on the left, under "Freeway Routes" click like, 4W or something [4] is a direct link. Anything from 1 - 22 (oops) has the title "SR-X" -- state route X. Also, 1-22 were updated YESTERDAY, whereas all the other ones were updated back around 2004. atanamir 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Granted, I will agree that some of the links are not correct usage, but looking through the first 50 pages and discounting the 100 or so "Califronia State Route X" results, a vast majority of them still contain State Route number. And it's tsill 138,000 vs 136. So to be safe we can take off 10-20,000 results if you want of non-relevant results. That's still 120,000 vs 138. atanamir 01:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Sure, one can call them California State Route X. People will also call them California Highway X or even California Route X. It depends on where internationally. I also call it "the X-Files movie", or "the Rio Hondo River in California", not "The X-Files (film)" or "Rio Hondo (California)". Should we move those too? atanamir 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is known as "State Route 56" internationally. [5] "Lessons from America – the San Diego HOT lane" - "The HOT lanes currently run for eight miles in the median of Interstate 15 between State Route 56 and State Route 56 to the north of San Diego, California, and are reversible." Owned yet? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... which one looks like a more reliable source? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_6#Category:United_States_Highways_by_state_-.3E_Category:U.S._Highways_by_state_or_Category:U.S._Routes_by_state?

Is there any wiggle in your choice for Highways vs Routes on the above discussion? There is consensus to rename but not nessecarily consensus for the target of the rename (2 for routes, 1 for highways, and I don't have a feeling either way. ;) ). Let me know here if you would, and hope you're feeling better (from the flu notice up top). --Syrthiss 13:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Respiratory flu

Didn't notice the flu notice either until this; agree with Syrthiss, hope you get over it quickly. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I hope you get well soon too. =) atanamir 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WT:UTSH - comments requested

Hey, I made a comment there, with a link to my user space for a new route list style. Comments requested. Thanks — Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/s/c/User_talk%7ERschen7754_Archive_5_31f7.html"