User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Redlinked categories
I don't know; I asked him to fix it. --NE2 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I'm doing an AWB run on California right now mainly to fix issues with WP:USSH compliance, so I can remove the category as part of that. --NE2 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Witchford Page
Can I just ask: "Why did you delete the Witchford page?", as I, along with others, are confused to why it was nominated for deletion. Thank you for reading. Fr4zer 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- It was written like an ad. WP:NPOV needs to apply to the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Surely you could of put that on the discussion page or changed it yourself instead of getting it deleted! Fr4zer 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would have to be nearly rewritten. WP:NOT a travel guide. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you could of still put it in the Discussion page first. I'm sure others wouldn't of minded re-writing it... me for example, along with the others who created it. Fr4zer 16:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would have to be nearly rewritten. WP:NOT a travel guide. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Surely you could of put that on the discussion page or changed it yourself instead of getting it deleted! Fr4zer 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Account
This really belongs in your userspace, and not as a subpage in the Wikipedia namespace, given your involvement in the dispute at the heart of the matter. --bainer (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- My hope is to have others from both sides review it to eliminate any bias. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have mail! :)
Best,
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't gotten it yet... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Check spam? It went via wiki webmail. Or email me your address and I'll send it directly :)
Thanks!
Speak soon,
FT2 (Talk | email) 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try that :)
Good faith but horrible edits
On your question to FT2 - currently I have a question about whether this candidate can successfully deal with this. edward (buckner) 11:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Roads in Washington, DC area
I noticed that you had a concern about the size of Template:Roads in Washington, DC area. Would you like me to downsize the template possibly to only include major roads? Dough4872 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That would be better, but at WP:USRD (and generally Wikipedia-wide) we object to the existence of those templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about splitting the template into two: one for streets in Washington, DC and one for numbered roads in the metropolitian area in order to make each smaller. Dough4872 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The second template you describe is not necessary. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about splitting the template into two: one for streets in Washington, DC and one for numbered roads in the metropolitian area in order to make each smaller. Dough4872 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
California mileage
I finally found a source for precise mileage with all equations figured in: the list of truck routes (XLS file). I'm not sure if it has enough information to calculate the lengths of overlaps, but I'll do some testing. --NE2 08:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Once I make all the maps I'll run AWB on the talk pages. Right now I'm finishing the GIS data outside SoCal. --NE2 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Arb questions
It took time, but you have all but one answer and that one coming soon. Hopefully the others are detailed enough to cover it to a fair degree :)
Thanks for the patience! It was appreciated :)
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
essay-project-note template
I'm curious as to what the purpose of this template is - and why it was reverted - Is our notability page Wikipedia policy? — master sonT - C 00:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not a policy, but a guideline. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- see User_talk:Gorgan_almighty#Template:Essay-project-note_on_WP:USRD.2FNT. The message I left to the user who applied the template — master sonT - C 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17
 |
 |
 |
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 1, Issue 17 • December 15, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Royalbroil 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- How did you and others catch it so fast? I'm rarely the one to revert my own page's vandalism, even though I caught it less than 10 minutes later. Royalbroil 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your talk page was on my watchlist (since I never bothered to take it off after I wrote on your talk a while back)... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, makes sense. I was wondering if that was the case since I knew that you were very involved in the U.S. Highways WikiProject. I used to help with the Wisconsin Highways WikiProject, but my plate was getting too full and I was concentrating on my other WikiProjects more. My main contributions had been photographs of major locations along Wisconsin Highways. I found that others found galleries of photographs like that unsightly, so I moved them to Commons and moved on. Now my plate's even fuller with becoming an admin and frequently helping update DYK. Royalbroil 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your talk page was on my watchlist (since I never bothered to take it off after I wrote on your talk a while back)... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- How did you and others catch it so fast? I'm rarely the one to revert my own page's vandalism, even though I caught it less than 10 minutes later. Royalbroil 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion
I'm sorry. I forgot how to delete pages that I didn't want anymore, and I tried to do it at the top of my head. I put a template on the page that I remembered, and it said that it was in the wrong place, so I followed the link and put the template there, and it still said it was in the wrong place. I'm very sorry if I caused too much trouble. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's okay. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of club list
Hi there, I noticed that you removed (or AfD'd) the list of korfball clubs. I cannot work out how to see any comments on why? Can you let me know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_korfball_clubs&action=edit
Many thanks Spiggers (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was just a list of external links. WP:NOT a web directory. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Old Plank Road
How does this not fall under the scope of USRD, even with your proposed changes? --NE2 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's an auto trail. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an auto trail, but basically another Ridge Route, and auto trails are still in USRD. --NE2 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be in CA though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it should... it was maintained by the state. --NE2 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does not belong in the scope of CASH. As I was here since nearly the conception of CASH, I would know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are not a project, even if you helped start it. --NE2 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who said I was? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're claiming that you know what's best for the project. --NE2 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because I know that the **SH model was never intended for auto trails. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't know that; Wikipedia, and its projects, are constantly evolving. --NE2 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like you would know any better. And I can know that the **SH model was never intended for auto trails, having created a few **SH projects myself, as well as IH, USH, and USRD, mind you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't accept your authority to make these decisions, and that's that. --NE2 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently you don't accept the authority of consensus either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't accept your authority to make these decisions, and that's that. --NE2 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like you would know any better. And I can know that the **SH model was never intended for auto trails, having created a few **SH projects myself, as well as IH, USH, and USRD, mind you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't know that; Wikipedia, and its projects, are constantly evolving. --NE2 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because I know that the **SH model was never intended for auto trails. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're claiming that you know what's best for the project. --NE2 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who said I was? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are not a project, even if you helped start it. --NE2 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does not belong in the scope of CASH. As I was here since nearly the conception of CASH, I would know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it should... it was maintained by the state. --NE2 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be in CA though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an auto trail, but basically another Ridge Route, and auto trails are still in USRD. --NE2 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal Request
Hello. I saw your request for mediation at WP:MEDCAB, and would like to mediate the case that you are a party to, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads. I hope that you will allow me to mediate your dispute peacefully, and that the problem can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Best regards, Keilana(recall) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
User:QU109999
Please see WP:ANI#User:QU109999. I don't think that the blocking of QU109999 was right. Corvus cornixtalk 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
Hello.I noticed you indefinetly blocked QU109999, but many users, like myself, disagree.This is because he has made a mistake ona page but continued to blank his talk page.Since he is logged in he is allowed to do so.Is it possible to unblock him?Thanks.Regards,IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection
It appears that you reverted a change made as part of a dispute,[1] then appied full protection to the same page.[2] It also appears that you were involved in the dispute, based on your comments on the project talk page. The protection policy, WP:PP, says:
- Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in...During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute,...
Do you see the problem with this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you see my diff? I blanked the section and then protected, thus not taking a side in an edit war. Even at User talk:Keilana, NE2 accepted this. So no, I do not see the problem with this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the diff in which you made an edit to a page before protecting it. The only reasons for doing so that WP:PP endorses are vandalism, copyright, or defamation, and you aren't claiming it was any of those. I also see that you aren't claiming to be uninvolved a dispute over the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. You have been involved in the discussion, and have expressed opinions on the matter. WP:PP says that those who are parties to a dispute should not protect involved pages. I don't care what this dispute is about, and only got involved because a watchlisted article was nominated for AfD. But if you can't see the problem with this protection then I think there's a bigger problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I protected it blank. What the hell happened to WP:IAR? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't see you invoking "IAR" until challenged. Admins should follow the policies, and shouldn't claim the privilege to ignore rules when it's convenient for them. Please undo your protection, revert your change, and ask an uninvolved admin to apply protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I protected it blank. What is the problem with that? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that A) you were involvd in the dispute and B) you edited the page before protecting it. Both of those are violations of the protection policy. Add to those: C) you don't see anything wrong with your actions. At this stage I'd have brought this to AN/I but since you started an RfAR I've added it there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I protected it blank. What is the problem with that? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't see you invoking "IAR" until challenged. Admins should follow the policies, and shouldn't claim the privilege to ignore rules when it's convenient for them. Please undo your protection, revert your change, and ask an uninvolved admin to apply protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I protected it blank. What the hell happened to WP:IAR? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the diff in which you made an edit to a page before protecting it. The only reasons for doing so that WP:PP endorses are vandalism, copyright, or defamation, and you aren't claiming it was any of those. I also see that you aren't claiming to be uninvolved a dispute over the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. You have been involved in the discussion, and have expressed opinions on the matter. WP:PP says that those who are parties to a dispute should not protect involved pages. I don't care what this dispute is about, and only got involved because a watchlisted article was nominated for AfD. But if you can't see the problem with this protection then I think there's a bigger problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was a rational thing to do here. In the least, it's better than having the page protected in either version. Rather than citing policy to the letter, think about Rschen7754's intent and the overall benefit this produces for the dispute. –Pomte 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Rschen7754 asked me to compare his edit with that of user:Scott5114. I'm not sure which he means - the revert of the editing tag (which is poor form), or the change to the text of the "Scope" section. In any case I looked back further, to the date when the text was added by NE2.[3] Prior to that the only text was pretty cursory and he aded more detailed text. It appears to me that blanking the section had the effect of reverting the November 10 edit by NE2, and so was not neutral. The neutral and proper thing would have been to ask an uninvoeld adminto place the block, and that admin should not have blanked or otherwise edited the article. These are not minor technicialities. To be honest, I don't even see the need to have protected the project page. Again, I call on Rschen7754 to undo this out-of-policy, unneeded aciton. If you're bringing a case against someone else for breaking the rules then it's a bad time to be claiming IAR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I told Will on User talk:Will Beback that I don't think you did anything de facto wrong; I'm not sure whether he's confused about the effect of the scope or (bad faith alert!) "rules-lawyering". --NE2 07:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take NE2's word for it that the blanking was neutral. However my other concerns remain. Admins should not protect pages in which they're involved in disputes, admins should not edit articles before protecting them, admins should not protect pages unless necessary, and admins should be capable of admitting their mistakes rather than relying on IAR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Protection wasn't needed, but it was beneficial: If the page weren't protected, or if Rschen7754 waited for another admin's response, there might very well be a shouting match about 3RR right now, which is the last thing we want. I'm not familiar with the development of the protection policy, but I doubt it was written to prevent this sort of action, which has been established to be neutral by both sides. I think common sense applies here more than IAR. I'm only defending the action here from common sense, and suggest that you look for other actions that more convincingly indicate an error on Rschen7754's part. –Pomte 07:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean is that when I edited the page, I did not protect either Scott or NE2's edits but blanked the section, tagged it with {{dispute}} and protected it. Sure, I may have broken the letter of the law but I did not violate the spirit of the law. Think of it as the man who speeds, runs red lights, etc. to take his dying wife to the hospital. Thank you NE2 for your comment. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't see, and you haven't explained, why you protected the article in the first place and why it's still protected. There was no ongoing edit war. The protection policy says that articles should be used to stop an actual problem, not to prevent one we think may happen. I've asked you twice to remove the protection, but you haven't explained why it was or is necessary.
- Hey, every admin makes mistakes. We push "rollback" when we were aiming for "undo", we delete articles that might be worth keeping, we apply protection incorrectly. But we should all be humble enough to acknowledge and correct our errors when we make them. I wrote you here to bring up the problem with you first, and I still urge you just to fix the error. If you don't, the protection will expire or be lifted by someone else and so no long term harm will remain, except the impression that admins may ignore all rules out of convenience rather than necessity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel so led, you are an admin, you can remove the protection. I did the protection to stop an edit war. Hence the pp- template on the page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Thank you!
I was the author originally responsible for the Ridge Route article, albeit under the different username of "Lucky 6.9." For that matter, I also created the US Highway 99 and Automobile Club of Southern California articles. I can't tell you how much I appreciate how far the Ridge Route article has come since it was featured as well as how much I appreciate you nominating it for inclusion in the Version 0.7 Wikipedia. I've added an important point which had been lost somewhere down the line, namely the threat of the state being split in two at the Tehachapis because of what many perceived to be the impossible task of building a direct route. I also wanted to see what kind of shape the article was in before I parsed it over to Veropedia since I no longer actively edit this site. A happy new year to you! Sincerely, PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Bear Valley Road
I just got the message today regarding the Deletion template, and thought to merge it with Victorville, CA, but when I headed over there another admin CSD'd it anyway. So, I guess nevermind. But this isn't a complaint: thanks for warning me at least. ░▒▓NachoTheCheesyOne▓▒░ Meet | Talk 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Forget something?
on here seems the bottom template didn't work - and the top template wasn't placed - though you'd might want to know. ;) — master sonT - C 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. I realized it didn't work and was searching for the right template. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by uninvolved parties (those not named specifically in "Involved Parties") are moved to the talk page as a matter of course unless a motion is made by an arbitrator to include the commenter; there are a number of exceptions but as a rule the clerks will not add a party to a case unilateraly. — Coren (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on three different fronts per your email. Daniel 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Check User request - Artisol / AL2TB
Rschen, I need a bit of an assist on this one building the rest of the case for checkuser. It's being reconsidered (last I checked), and there needs to be more incident examples, accompanied by the supporting diffs. If you have time, could you look at this for me? Thanks. I've quick-linked all the pertinent pages below for your convenience;
- SOCKS case
- RFCU Request
- IP Confirmed SOCKP
- Old AL2TB user talk showing IP address
- AL2TB userpage
- Artisol userpage
If there's anything else you think you'd need, thread it here, I'm bookmarking this page. Edit Centric (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
SR 241 Extension
Will the 241 South ever be extend? My school principal told me they will never happens. --Freewayguy (Meet) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it is. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Wikieditor9999
This editor is known to contribute from the following IPs:
I assume one was autoblocked when you blocked him, but he's still sniping at the Cayra AfD on the other IP. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I thought he got blocked, when he really didn't. I should probably change that... --EoL talk 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
 |
Thanks for your support | |
| Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
Unprotect request for article "Palestinian people"
I joined the discussion as a result of a 3O request and we have since reached a consensus on the phrasing that was at issue. As a disinterested third party I'm asking that the protection be dropped but a close eye kept on the article in case edit wars or mass vandalism break out. The requests for unprotection says to contact the protecting admin first. Padillah (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does this relate to arbitration? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen the arbitration entry and I don't think it does. First off, it's not mentioned, as such, in the arbitration request. Second, as many at the arbitration have pointed out that is more an arbitration of editor practices, this is a case where, between the 3O and consensus building, we have come to an agreement. Whether that agreement will give way to the editing practices that are being arbitrated is a valid point but I don't think it's strong enough, on it's own, to keep the article locked. This would also allow the article to serve as a test-bed and example going forward. Even if it does fall victim to the editing practices being arbitrated it could be used as a final negative example that even with the hard work of devoted editors these articles are always going to fall victim to these types of predatory editing. Padillah (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not very familiar with the issue, so another admin may wish to unprotect it. I have no problems whatsoever if one decides to do so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen the arbitration entry and I don't think it does. First off, it's not mentioned, as such, in the arbitration request. Second, as many at the arbitration have pointed out that is more an arbitration of editor practices, this is a case where, between the 3O and consensus building, we have come to an agreement. Whether that agreement will give way to the editing practices that are being arbitrated is a valid point but I don't think it's strong enough, on it's own, to keep the article locked. This would also allow the article to serve as a test-bed and example going forward. Even if it does fall victim to the editing practices being arbitrated it could be used as a final negative example that even with the hard work of devoted editors these articles are always going to fall victim to these types of predatory editing. Padillah (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Washington
Thanks for the heads up. Are you referring to Wiki890/Wiki1997? I seem to remember chasing him around the 5xx routes shortly before my departure, and actually nailed him for a copyvio somewhere while I was gone using a different username. I think that's pretty much all I'm good for right now... cleaning up articles, and offering mediation services should anything happen at WT:USRD. I don't actually have reliable access to the internet at home, so my time here is rather limited.
With regards to the arbitration case, I am keeping up with it, but like I said, I'm going to try very hard not to contribute. As a heads up, be prepared to not necessarily like how it turns out. I think it's extremely parallel to what happened with SPUI, only NE2 is less extreme. So expect the arbitrators to perhaps level some NE2-specific judgment, but moreso they might have stuff to say about USRD as a whole, like they did in the first case. -- NORTH talk 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah except he lost his password again so he's ComputerGuy now... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
SR 174
Here's the edit that added it. --NE2 14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom case order
Hey there.
Cases, in general, are not handled in a specific order. They get moved to voting when the arbitrators have something to vote one which may happen sooner or later depending on how clear what they have to do is, or on how easily they figured out what to vote on. Most of the deliberations happen off-wiki and they may well have quickly agreed on the proper course in a recent case while still figuring out what to do in a slightly older one. In this specific case, the Palestine/Israel case is large but a mostly straightforward case of POV warring, and the ArbCom has a number of quite standard remedies at hand for a case like this. — Coren (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
California
Except for 1993 and later, you'll have to download the statutes from [4] to verify and add the law name if a template hasn't been created yet. It might be easier if I did it; just ask and I will. --NE2 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ahhh, there's some bond issue stuff in there, and a few especially strange issues with Route 50. Mind if I write the whole history? --NE2 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- It would be {{cite CAstat|year=1993|ch=179}} ("An act to add Sections 280, 281, 282, and 283 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to highways.", 1993 chapter 179) - it's very useful for the laws, like the renumbering one, that get cited a lot. --NE2 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I completed the history; let me know if you think anything's missing. --NE2 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
B-class standards
You've been marking articles as start-class because they have missing sections, but the table on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment specifically allows missing sections. Is there another criterion you're using? --NE2 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Assessment --NE2 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been checking for the "big three": Route description, History, and Major intersections or junction list. If they exist and they're not a total mess (i.e. bulleted lists or something horrible) then I leave it at B class. WP:USRD/A refers to gaps in the material - maybe the route description is short, or whatever. A section entirely missing is not a B class. (And some had two missing, and one had no headings whatsoever...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
M-26 and M-28
Can you take a look at these two articles for me? I repromoted them both back to B-class. I know M-28 should definitely qualify (added junction list community box, historic bridges) but I also reworked the intro and route description sections. Any feedback would be appreciated. Eventually, I'd like to take M-28 to a GA, but I'm not sure what else to do at this point besides try to find the milepoints for the intersection table. As for M-26, I'm iffy that adding in an intersection table was enough. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are solid B-class, but you need to use the standard headings as stated at WP:MOS. The other thing I noticed is you need citations. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I posted a reformated, slightly expanded version of M-28 at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3. Can you take a look at that one? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is better, just a few notes that citations are needed for history and that in the junction table, the route numbers should not be bolded. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The MIint templates default to bolding them. I can remove that though. Citations will be easy to add. Anything else? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RS may not like some of the history sources. Also, the wildlife refuge section may be a tangent. You may wish to take your articles by WP:HWY/PR for additional suggestions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The MIint templates default to bolding them. I can remove that though. Citations will be easy to add. Anything else? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is better, just a few notes that citations are needed for history and that in the junction table, the route numbers should not be bolded. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I posted a reformated, slightly expanded version of M-28 at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox3. Can you take a look at that one? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocking those IPs?
Rschen7754, you're being irrational. Your recent reverts to one's IP addresses from AT&T does not solve any problems. Aside from the fact that IPs like User:75.47.217.208 are definitely not in my IP range, why do you still apply that sockpuppet tag of my cousin, User:Artisol2345? It does not solve problems that way, and neither should blocking them. I don't wish to see any more users suffer the same consequences that I had to just because they just picked up Artisol2345's editing style. Unless his edits are vandalism, I suggest that you stop accusing that other user as my cousin. You and I both realize that you are blocking him for my cousin's doings, not the IPs. If you continue to block that user's IPs, I will report this crazed hulabaloo to WP:ANI, or I will contact Wikipedia via e-mail if I'm blocked. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- All the proof points to them being the same user. All I have is your word to support that they are separate users. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Between me and the IP, what kind of proof do you have that makes you belive that we happen to be the same? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Similar editing styles, the IP began editing when you began to be criticized, same ISP, suspicious edits on the IP's part... --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Same ISP"? The IP user uses AT&T; I use Cox. How are those the same ISPs? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. The IP was being disruptive, regardless of whether he was you or not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- How are his/her edits disruptive? I don't see it from his contributions. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Using edit summaries similar to WP:TWINKLE and calling good edits vandalism. Besides removing sock templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- How are his/her edits disruptive? I don't see it from his contributions. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. The IP was being disruptive, regardless of whether he was you or not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Same ISP"? The IP user uses AT&T; I use Cox. How are those the same ISPs? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Similar editing styles, the IP began editing when you began to be criticized, same ISP, suspicious edits on the IP's part... --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Between me and the IP, what kind of proof do you have that makes you belive that we happen to be the same? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Mitch32contribs 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
GA review of California State Route 3
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My essay
Like it says in the note at the top, its still under construction, if anyone has any concerns about the factual accuracy of it then I can still address those issues. When I wrote it last night, I was tired and didn't have the time to add more to it, in fact I didn't even intend for anyone to see it in that form, which is why it is only linked to in my "Links placed here for my convenience" section with a note that I'm still working on it. I'm sort of pressed for time right now, so I won't be able to do it until later tonight, but I will address the concerns you presented to me. Some points I thought I'd make here.
- Maybe from your point of view NE2 isn't being bullied, but from the general reaction to the ArbCom case, that's the impression I get. Of course I also feel that NE2 is partially to blame for what's happened so calling it bullying is probably going too far, I'll fix that in my next revision.
- As for the participants list and participation in USRD, I meant to add a point about those, but have not yet gotten to it.
- If LASH is a task force now that that must mean that it failed to work on its own as a WikiProject. My arguments only apply to projects that are able to function on their own. I'll have to make that more clear, again in my next revision.
Don't take anything I write personally, I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm simply expressing my concerns about the current state of USRD, and as such it's just my opinion.-Jeff (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. I only noticed it because I was wondering "Hmm, I wonder if people have been talking about our arbitration case" and did a whatlinkshere on the case... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
ChatZilla
Hey, I'm having some odd problems with my ChatZilla at the moment...but I've got too much other stuff on my PC at the moment to reboot or anything like that. So if you need to reach me, on-Wiki is the best. --Son (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
kurumi and Interstate-Guide
Can you enlighten me base on all these routes if they made them up or they only went through bill? I don't know what the damn heck is the Interstate 730 doing there? I thought Kurumi is more speculative than Interstate-Guide.com. Stuff like Interstate 570 did they made them up or just an false law? --Freewayguy (Meet) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
USRD Mediation
Yesterday, Rschen7754 wrote; "There have been some disputes that have come up... would you consider remaining at USRD and serving as a mediator? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like a plan, you might want to present that in the current RFAR if you think it's appropriate... Edit Centric (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
67.159.45.92
Why you block this IP Indefinitely. He never made any changs. and How can people use sockpuppet like User:Aristol 2345 and how you know he made sockpuppet.--Freewayguy (Meet) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Exit lists
It's probably less confusing than having to jump around to follow the Santa Ana Freeway - and that's the article that will have all the details, and so that's the one that you'll be more likely to want a list of exits while reading. --NE2 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any way to have the link point right to the section of the exit list that pertains? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Replacement system
I've been mentioning the systems in the lead without any objections: see US 50, SR 20, and SR 46. --NE2 20:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, but that currently goes against WP:CASH. I'm not opposed to a change in the standards, but you and I do not make a WikiProject or a consensus. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's why I brought it up on USRD... and it's not just a California thing; I've seen it in Utah. --NE2 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Route 19
Please do not make those edits to that page again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why? It was not vandalism. In fact, I was reverting the edits of a user who was blindly following Wikipedia guidelines (suggestions, not rules) with no regard for encyclopedic content. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. The guideline exists because over ten junctions makes the infobox too big. If it is easier, you may do less than 10, but absolutely no more than ten junctions may be listed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- And this would be why, exactly? Because a group of users came up with an "absolute" limit, in contravention to WP:POLICY. (In fact, I wouldn't even call it a guideline, or anything of the sort. All I have is the opinion of two Wikipedians that 10 is an absolute limit... and I've scoured the policies and guidelines to try to find something even remotely official to justify the strong defense the two of you have mounted on this article.) Look, whatever the result by consensus is on U.S. Route 19, I'll live with that. I would strongly suggest, though, that you not use your position as an admin to try to intimidate users into crafting articles YOUR way. Your note on my talk page hinted that I'd violated WP:POLICY, and I don't appreciate such a strongly worded (yet darkly vague) warning. That's not a good path to go down for you as an admin, my dear sir/madam. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am not using my clout as an administrator; I never even mentioned it. I'm telling you as a fellow editor to not make those edits again. You're going against the long-established consensus of the 10 junction limit. Trust us; we've been down the "list every darn junction" road before. It's ugly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- And this would be why, exactly? Because a group of users came up with an "absolute" limit, in contravention to WP:POLICY. (In fact, I wouldn't even call it a guideline, or anything of the sort. All I have is the opinion of two Wikipedians that 10 is an absolute limit... and I've scoured the policies and guidelines to try to find something even remotely official to justify the strong defense the two of you have mounted on this article.) Look, whatever the result by consensus is on U.S. Route 19, I'll live with that. I would strongly suggest, though, that you not use your position as an admin to try to intimidate users into crafting articles YOUR way. Your note on my talk page hinted that I'd violated WP:POLICY, and I don't appreciate such a strongly worded (yet darkly vague) warning. That's not a good path to go down for you as an admin, my dear sir/madam. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Okay. Please note, though, that I did not add anything to the article that wasn't already there when I started. (To wit, I merely returned info to the infobox; the edit prior, I actually removed verbiage. Net change to the article from my edits was negative; even discounting the first edit, it's still 0.) So I still say your strongly-worded warning is... well, I hope I can be forgiven in finding it more than a bit strange, given that I certainly was not "listing every darn junction". But don't take my word for it... look at the edit history. ;-) Anyway, I think we're good now. Let's continue this discussion at U.S. Route 19, where I already noted I'm going to take a day or so off from this article. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
I-10 in California Junctions
Thanks for the guidance. Looks like this has come up before. New contributor's error. Wwardw (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Washington State Highways Barnstar!
 |
The Washington State Highways Barnstar | |
| You are awarded this barnstar for your hard work on the Washington State Highways WikiProject. - — ComputerGuy890100 • Talk • 02:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
Stalking
Now you know why I'm following you? If you haven't figured it out, obviously you've been watching me like a hawk. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- As you have broken WP:SOCK and other Wikipedia policies before, it is within my rights to do so to make sure that you do not break further policies. I have only dealt with you on the roads level - note that I don't go to other non-road articles you edit and harass you there. However, you are going around and interfering with my administrative and other actions as a user. That is not allowed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- So why is it so important to you to keep the sockpuppet categories on my userpage? After all, you're the only one doing so; no one else has done it while you were on your wikibreak. And how is it that I broke the WP:SOCK rules if this is my only account that I'm using? Why do you think I'm trying to fill a usurpation request? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because I don't use sockpuppets and have never been accused of such. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- So why is it so important to you to keep the sockpuppet categories on my userpage? After all, you're the only one doing so; no one else has done it while you were on your wikibreak. And how is it that I broke the WP:SOCK rules if this is my only account that I'm using? Why do you think I'm trying to fill a usurpation request? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
SSP
I don't know why you are so concerned about that SSP case that has concluded, but could you please list all the actions done by my cousin Artisol2345 and list his sockpuppet usernames? (If that's okay with you) Hopefully, this could give me further explanations. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um, Artisol2345 did many things that were annoying by breaking USRD standards - stuff that we have to go back and clean up, which really irritates us. (Reason that 75 IP is so annoying is that we have to go back and clean up after him - I wasted 4-5 hours this weekend cleaning up after him and the 66 IP). Also, Artisol2345 used sockpuppets in an AFD, and this was blatantly obvious. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh... I'm sorry to hear. Should I stop editing USRD, too? I think the reason why I've been unintentionally breaking the standards as well was because I'm not that good on reading comprehension. Therefore, when I read your standards, either I read it too quickly, or I did not understand them properly. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main concern that I have is that when someone tells you what you are doing wrong, you are not correctable. You don't ask what or how you can change to make things better; you instantly "strike back" and refuse correction. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard being correctible; I try to hold back my reverts, but for some reason I just want to fight with NE2 in edit wars. But I was told to move on, so I think I should avoid some article that NE2 edits. It seems that NE2 is protective of "his articles", and I wonder if he also understood me when I advised him to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a different issue - others of us have had similar issues with NE2. But when I tell you that you've been doing something wrong, you instantly fight back. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard being correctible; I try to hold back my reverts, but for some reason I just want to fight with NE2 in edit wars. But I was told to move on, so I think I should avoid some article that NE2 edits. It seems that NE2 is protective of "his articles", and I wonder if he also understood me when I advised him to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main concern that I have is that when someone tells you what you are doing wrong, you are not correctable. You don't ask what or how you can change to make things better; you instantly "strike back" and refuse correction. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh... I'm sorry to hear. Should I stop editing USRD, too? I think the reason why I've been unintentionally breaking the standards as well was because I'm not that good on reading comprehension. Therefore, when I read your standards, either I read it too quickly, or I did not understand them properly. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Arizona State Route 51
You marked AZ 51 for needing attention with regards to its exit list without explanation except it needs to conform to WP:ELG. Well, I created that exit list roughly six months ago and I am not seeing the issue with it. Could you provide any details to what you see as a problem? Thanks. --Holderca1 talk 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Main issue is there is no indication of what city it is in. If you're omitting the column you need to say what city it is in somewhere in that section. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Manifesto
I completely agree with everything in the Manifesto.
Unfortunately, due to unforeseen time constraints, as well as frustrations with Wikipedia (not just in the roads project, but in others), I have decided to draw back from some WikiProjects, including USRD. I really want to spend time on getting PA roads up to standard, and being involved in USRD has certainly distracted me from that. And I just don't want to get involved in all the drama. Of course, I'm still going to watch the page and see the discussions as some discussions could involve PA.
Additionally, I changed the name of WP:PASH because I felt that the project name should be what the project is about. And in reality, the project is about roads in Pennsylvania. It's more than just highways, but local roads, scenic byways, beltways (such as the series around Pittsburgh), state routes, quadrant routes, and some regular streets. I had been arguing in the past that USST should control city streets and USRD should not. However, the correct argument is that those streets should fall under state subprojects. USST should exist, but it should be a "common room" for the City project and Road project.
As well, I think that while upmerging all of the project templates under USRD was a good idea at the time - if the manifesto is to go ahead, then they should be devolved back to the way they were; the only templates that USRD should be used on are states without a project and inter-state roads.
Keep the faith! --Son (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main concern with the PASH moves was that no other PASH editors were consulted before the sudden moves - you may wish to start a discussion to make sure that this was okay. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a better idea...
Unless everyone votes on moving Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) to your title, do not move it and say that I should read WP:USSH. Right now, I find WP:USSH very incomprehensible to me, so therefore, the only way I could understand you is if you actually tell me a clear reason why your move was better. I'm starting to think that you are getting more and more biased... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The point is moot. And no, I'm not the only one reverting your edits; NE2 is. That's a hint that you must be doing something wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't always mean you are always right. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, but most of the time you're wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know if I was wrong? I'm not wrong most of the time. If you were to prove me wrong, you would show me some of my diffs that did not help. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- [5] - you should not have done this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but that was to show the user the title of the actual article when they hover over the link. I don't even know why the Wikipedia policy interprets this as an unhelpful thing. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason to change the link. There is no problem with showing CR J4 (CA) or whatever it was with the hover function. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well it might at least save them a few seconds from actually having to click on the article if they wish to find out the target article from the link. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia says don't do it. So don't. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- They said it was discouraged; that doesn't mean it's not allowed. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop Wikilawyering and just don't do it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- They said it was discouraged; that doesn't mean it's not allowed. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia says don't do it. So don't. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well it might at least save them a few seconds from actually having to click on the article if they wish to find out the target article from the link. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason to change the link. There is no problem with showing CR J4 (CA) or whatever it was with the hover function. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but that was to show the user the title of the actual article when they hover over the link. I don't even know why the Wikipedia policy interprets this as an unhelpful thing. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- [5] - you should not have done this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know if I was wrong? I'm not wrong most of the time. If you were to prove me wrong, you would show me some of my diffs that did not help. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, but most of the time you're wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case I reverted your move of I-210/SR 210, since the California needs to apply to both I-210 and SR 210. WP:USSH doesn't really apply to special cases. --NE2 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to, me or Rschen7754? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I've stopped providing explanations is because you either a) say I'm wrong or b) misunderstand them. Therefore, I don't see the point in doing so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to, me or Rschen7754? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't always mean you are always right. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, how is it that whenever I post something on their talk page, this wacked-out hulabaloo occurs. *THAT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION.* ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- So NE2, you're saying that a picture of two kittens romancing can actually help resolve this dispute? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 2
|
|
|
| The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
| Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ted Williams
The IP's edit in [6] was correct; SR 56 is the Ted Williams Freeway and the continuation beyond I-15 is the Ted Williams Parkway. I'm removing the name entirely though, since it seems to be a rarely-used ceremonial name. --NE2 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
US 395 (CA)
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways#Should we use the exact definition of freeway that Caltrans uses? --NE2 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:75.47.140.0
I don't think you're supposed to prevent people from removing warnings: "Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.", Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/FAQ#How about creating a user warning template... --NE2 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, the problem with that is when it's applied to the extreme; then experienced IP vandals would just remove the vandalism templates and disrupt the system. Hence I've semiprotected the template into place - it just wasn't a guaranteed right by policy because there are legitimate reasons why a user might want to blank their talk page - leaving Wikipedia for example. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:IH
According to the standards, the section is optional. --NE2 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry...
I realize that I've been a bit of a "dick" in the past few hours. I'm going to blame it on caffeine withdrawal, but you can blame it on me. What California route do you want me to write about the history of? --NE2 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. I'll have to think about a route history. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
References/Notes
Thank you for your comment of 24 February 2008 at New Mexico State Road 120. You may be interested in my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style#References/Notes. Some people prefer to separate notes and inline citation from general references. --Bejnar (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
75 IP creations
Can you delete all the "express lanes" articles in Special:Contributions/75.47.201.80 under WP:CSD#R3 (these are misnomers)? Thank you. --NE2 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't as they aren't R3; as I would like to, I'll probably get in trouble for doing so - you'll have to see WP:RFD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Foothill Blvd. (Unsigned Freeway) was just deleted under it. --NE2 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:CAScenic
Template:CAScenic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 09:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:CAFES
Template:CAFES has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 09:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Twinkle
I'm not familiar with Twinkle. Isn't it just an editing tool? - Evil saltine (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:TWINKLE - it's used for reverting vandalism as well. Also, edit summaries made to look like Twinkle are disruptive, and since IPs cannot use Twinkle... --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrator's noticeboard
Just so you know, I reported you to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:75.47.x.x
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of 75.47.x.x (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. -- Evil saltine (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please feel free to add anything I missed. Evil saltine (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Newhall Pass Interchange
Why did you reverted KTC's edits for? KTC is just correcting the letter i to I so why did you do that? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because KTC is wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- How come that he is wrong? Are you sure your saying it right? Because I don't think you are following the WP:Talk page guidelines properly even if you did follow them right then why did you do that? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, please stop what you are doing, as you are doing to Interstate 215 (California) and California State Route 60. Zzyzx11 reverted your edits back because your wrong. Its a west and east direction on SR 91. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - it is NOT called the "Newhall Pass Interchange." --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well the Newhall Pass interchange article and the Newhall Pass Interchange article
are both the same its just a typo fix so why did you do that? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ask NE2 then if he agrees with the changes from Newhall Pass interchange to Newhall Pass Interchange. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- You ask NE2. I have all sorts of crap in my life right now to deal with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- NE2 does not respond to IP address so what's the point in communicating with him anyway. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't respond to you when you say things like "We all know that he is wrong." --NE2 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Being wrong all the time is not a legitimate excuse --75.47.222.230 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- NE2 take your lies elsewhere, not us. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Being wrong all the time is not a legitimate excuse --75.47.222.230 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't respond to you when you say things like "We all know that he is wrong." --NE2 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- NE2 does not respond to IP address so what's the point in communicating with him anyway. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- You ask NE2. I have all sorts of crap in my life right now to deal with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ask NE2 then if he agrees with the changes from Newhall Pass interchange to Newhall Pass Interchange. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
