![]() | 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I was going to post a celebratory message here, but I don't think it appropriate under the circumstances. I will postpone it until tomorrow. -- Rs chen 7754 01:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This can't be done this way, can it?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 06:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You recently closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Longjohnlong, but I think he's reappeared as BunyipMan ( talk · contribs) with a general matching pattern of stalking contributions by Stuartyeates ( talk · contribs) and putting them up for deletion. Not disruptive per se, but worth reopening the case for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rschen7754; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday marks 8 years that I have been an editor here. Over the last few months, as my activity has increased now that I am out of undergrad, I have stopped several times to think at how long it has been. No matter how many times I have tried to quit, and despite all the hardships I have faced here, I am still as enthusiastic as ever, so it is evident that I will be here for quite a while longer
Over this next year my goals are to continue work on California road articles while staying involved in admin areas such as SPI. I've gotten 4 of the San Diego County road articles to the desired quality, and am working on finishing the rest of the county's road articles before moving on to Imperial County and then north through the rest of the state. It may take a long time to get this done, but now that I've put 8 years into getting the infrastructure ready for it, I might as well do it.
I will continue my work with U.S. Roads and with the Highways project in general, helping other editors write articles about their local roads. This is something that I hope to continue well after the California road articles are "finished."
At this time, I would like to soapbox a bit and promote two ideas that I think would improve the encyclopedia:
If we really want to work on editor retention, we need to get editors with specific interests plugged into these smaller groups, where they can form a community and collaborate and accomplish much more than they could individually. USRD is why I am still excited about Wikipedia 8 years later, even as the world outside USRD becomes no longer safe for the average editor. We cannot continue to strip WikiProjects of any capabilities that they still have and expect these groups of editors to stay around and generate high-quality content. Today there are only 3-4 A-Class review processes still remaining on this site, including the Highways ACR. We have roughly an 80% pass rate at FAC over the last 3 years because of this ACR. If only we had more ACRs left, I think that FAC wouldn't be the backlog that it is today (no fault of Ian or Graham of course, who are trying to make the best of it).
There will be times when functionaries screw up and need to be called out on their actions. But we must do it with words and logic, not with rhetoric and pitchforks. I have criticized two sitting arbitrators before, and my opinion that they should have resigned was clear, but I have strived to do so in respect, and I encourage you to do the same in similar situations.
A theme through all of these incidents deals with privacy, be it arbcom-l, CU, OS, or outing. Not everything that is private is bad. I think that today editors hear about private discussion going on and go ZOMG SECRET CABAL! MUST KILL!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!! Having seen a touch of what ArbCom deals with through my own OS requests and other issues (and no, they had nothing to do with Malleus or Cla68), and through my role on the SPI clerk team and on OTRS, I can say this for a fact - there are reasons why some information is private, and very good reasons at that. I can't even begin to imagine all that ArbCom actually deals with that the average editor will never see. A lot of the critics are quite frankly uninformed.
What happens on projects without an ArbCom is that this private information is discussed in public, which is uncomfortable at best and violates the editor's right to privacy at worst. I also hold sysop on Wikidata and the English Wikivoyage and have seen crosswiki situations like this.
We have a fundamental problem with editors going from WMF wiki to WMF wiki asking for user rights like they are toys, and many of them are young. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to protect their privacy as much as possible while still putting the goals of the encyclopedia/database/travel guide/dictionary etc. first. This responsibility does not involve vigilante actions or false or flawed accusations against others, but first communicating with the user, trying to work with them so that they become productive editors, and taking proper action if they do not in order to preserve the integrity of the site.
But anyway, off my soapbox, and back to writing an encyclopedia. It's been a great 8 years so far, and here's to the ones ahead! -- Rs chen 7754 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. i fix the problem, please unblocke my bot. Thanks Darafsh Kaviyani ( Talk) 13:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Rschen7754. Thanks for the warm welcome you added to my talkpage. I could do with some advice as how best to proceed with a discussion that I'm involved in on Talk:Second Severn Crossing, which is now going round in circles.
An editor there has converted all the primary units in the entire roads article from customary/imperial to metric without a substantial reason as advised in WP:UNITS. When challenged he has offered nothing but red herrings in defence. He has refused to accept, even though the article units had been stable for 2.5 years prior to his intervention, that it might be wise to keep the long established units system in place pending the outcome of the discussion. He is insistent that metric units should be dominant in this article, but is unable to justify that position.
Should I, for the sake of peace and harmony, just let his will prevail, or is there anything I could (or should) do to ensure the article gives best value to the readers? Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. The other editor is now actually refusing to discuss the matter further. Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, just to inform you that I mentioned your comments above in a discussion here. You might what to add more of your own observations there too. Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Thanks for realizing how utterly incorrect all of the WikiWork scores were. Without you, the entire initiative would have been a complete waste of time! Note to self: In the future, double check your API calls and make sure that the word class isn't spelled "clas". — Theopolisme ( talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
If you don't mind, I'd like to lift the block. I've communicated with the user by email about the issues here, and I'd like to AGF that this won't happen again. Keegan ( talk) 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
A sockpuppet you banned is using two new aliases( User:Bikramjit1983 and User:Jacksinghsully to make the same unsourced changes. Please use CheckUser to find if these two are the same. Thanks.-- Neelkamala ( talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
![]() At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
So why remove the California (and other) WikiProjects from particular road articles? Because other road articles related to other states don't have them? By analogy, Brooklyn Bridge is of interest to NY, NYC, trains in NYC, and NRHP projects. Perhaps Bridges is the only project that should be of interest for the article. Also, why not add the state projects to those road articles which are of state interest but don't have projects supporting them? In particular I'm looking at Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley. This road is the main drag connecting the towns in the valley. Seems to me adding state projects, especially when they have task forces interested in local areas, is a good method of attracting interested editors to the road articles. Your rationale and guidance will be appreciated. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
He was mentioned in the SPI but User:Zahid2005 seems to fit into the same category entirely. He !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datatune and then set about building his edit count to look like a legit account. But on closer inspection, almost all of the edits were gibberish or pointless red-link creation. I've reverted almost all of them. I didn't think opening the SPI again would be of great value but I thought I'd get your thoughts first. Stalwart 111 05:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you. I am curious, could you tell me where exactly (which policy page) it says that "[accusing] someone of sockpuppeting [is] a bannable offense" [1]? Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé ( talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rschen7754. I decided the best way forward with the above issue was to open a thread at ANI. You may wish to comment here. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 14:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a "TY" note for your input on my talk. I'll have a look at that the first chance I get. Thanks. — Ched : ? 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rschen7754. I have been thinking about setting up a wikiproject (or possibly task force) for Australian roads, and was wondering if you (or any of your friendly talk page stalkers) have any advice? I think that my first step will be to post a message on WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and see if other Australian roads editors would actually be interested in such a project. - Evad37 ( talk) 03:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This account was proven to be a sockpuppet, but why do you have to revert all of their edits? Their opinion can still be valid in AfDs, or constructive edits to articles would be wasted. Please spell out the logic here. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Rschen7754, you have rejected my request by quoting "If you put these crap again, you will be reported.", but that was done long ago and previously I was refused for this harsh edit summary, please see this- [2]. After that I refrain my self, and never be too rude with anyone. Could you reconsider it please?
First and foremost, let me apologize to you. I am sorry for the snide behavior I have done. There is no justification for that. So, a proper apology is due. And I beg your pardon for that.
What initiated this was your initial reply that "most of your concerns so far are ill-founded", which was far from welcoming. Though later you explained that "this seems like copying and pasting random sentences taken out of context and nitpicking at them" (which is a very valid point from your perspective, and is an appropriate reply in a FAC), the initial thinking that my comments were "ill-founded" was the inciting factor. I acknowledge that some of my comments arose because of my limited proficiency in English (such as, the comment on "Bidding was conducted on what was known as Road No. 3A on June 30, 1920", or, the comment "Route 198 also extended onto La Mesa Boulevard and Palm Avenue to SR 94" What is exactly meant by this sentence). That was really poor of me. On the other hand, there were some points (largely content/structural issues, and not prose issues) that were justified (such as, attributing the newspaper quote, wikilink for grade, distance to Julian from where). Lastly, there were many minor points (wikilink for freeway, paper-->newspaper) -- yes, these minor points are nitpicking, sorry for that. However, none of this were ill-founded. Perhaps, the way I wrote was poor. For example, while commenting on the attribution for the quote, I should have linked to the proper policy, instead of just saying "Who told that?". So, let me apologize for the poor sentence structure of my comments. As regards the limited English proficiency, I already acknowledged that in the FAC, and have stopped commenting on prose since.
Regarding the un-addressed comments, most of them or minor (TransNet, incomplete access), and do not have enough merit as to influence the delegate's decision. So, let's not worry over that. Whether I strike (or, do not strike) those out, or whether you change (or, do not change) those things hardly matter.
As I told in the FAC, the pivotal point (for me) remains the early history. I understand the frustration in you as you have dedicated hours and hours of hard toiling into this article. The amount of researching that has gone into this is bewildering. Majority of the sources are not available online, and probably you had to sift through thousands of pages of newspapers/books to bring the article to the present shape. This is simply extra-ordinary, and very rare. However, when I (a reader who is not acquainted with the local geography, and not a participant in US road projects) read the article, that was was the only area that stuck out sorely. I really could not understand the extents of Road No 3A or Ramona Road. And that's why I emphasized that.
It is completely understandable that data on old construction and maps may not be available. In that case, IMO, the article, in some form, should inform that to reader. That information may be in the text, may be in parenthesis, or may be in an explanatory note, or directly quoting the source that was used (in text or in explanatory note), or whatever (bye the way, I have not read that portion of the article in the last several hours, so I am unaware of recent changes).
Another aside, I found this site on Mussey Grade road. This website is likely to be not a RS. But it says "Mussey Grade Road was the main route from Ramona to San Diego for over fifty years until State Highway 67 was opened in 1943." Do you think this could be of any help?
Sorry for this long reply. Moreover, sorry for the condescending tone that I have used in the FAC after my initial comments. I hope you will pardon me. Although I complained above about your initial replies, your later replies were truly welcoming, and justified, despite me intermittently using a unpleasant tone. I really appreciate that. Once again, please accept my apologies. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
At this SPI case you asked that, in the future, a new case be started when new socks are discovered, instead of adding them to a closed case.
Trouble is, that case was closed, but it hadn't been archived. It's my recollection that it's not possible to start a new case while the old one is still on the WP:SPI page.
This kind of situation has happened repeatedly with this particular sockmaster. He likes to create new socks shortly after some of his socks have been blocked or one of his SPI cases has been "closed". I think he does it to taunt us by demonstrating that some of his IPs are still unblocked.
What procedure are you suggesting should be followed? -- Orlady ( talk) 02:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the talk page cleanup. In this particular case, the comment was just too tempting to reply to, so I did, but in general I do appreciate the efforts to clear such trolling comments. Cheers, 28bytes ( talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Rschen, don't the various editors have to be retagged based on AnddoX being the master and the others the puppets? The tags aren't right otherwise as well as they should point to the investigation page. I'm willing to do the tagging, although not tonight because I don't have time, if you wish. I just didn't want to tread on anyone's toes.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a try at compiling a fully-compliant RJL for the British M5, as I think that will aid discussion.
One specific problem is in the UK, the administrative boundaries have often match the centrelines of major roads. For example, city boundary of Exeter passes right through the middle of junction 30. That means its not solely in Exeter, nor is it solely in the neighbouring village. How do US RJLs handle cross-border junctions?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 22:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
GBRint}}
for this purpose (I'm have M62 in my
sandbox). Feel free to copy {{
IAint}}
, {{
ONint}}
or any of the other XXint templates for ideas. –
Fredddie
™
22:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rschen, First thanks for the note. Yea, once in a while I'll wander off to Wikimedia, Meta type stuff, Simple and such - but usually not for long. I have maybe half-dozen or so pics on commons, but sure wouldn't want to be a regular there - talk about toxic? WOW. Anyway - I do want to get involved with Wikidata a bit, not necessarily be an admin. or anything (there's enough headaches with that here .. lol). If you have some good links to help me get up to speed on it, please feel free to drop them on me. — Ched : ? 05:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Gold Standard 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In the conversation I have been having with evad about the startup porcess - he was saying that parts of the template tweaking to allow tagging requires admin status to do it - could you do it if you havent already ? cheers sats 03:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Interstate 70 in Colorado one of yours? I seem to remember Bencherlite asked once about interesting highway pages and I think it's one of the more interesting highways in the country - well I've driven it a lot so would say that - but it's a really well written article. Would you or the highway project be interested in noming for TFA? I'd do it but am not very good at the markup and busy during weekdays. It does have a cn tag I noticed. Anyway, thought I'd plant the thought. Also, didn't you have one promoted recently - the one in San Diego? That could be nomed instead and leave I-70 for a later date. In any event, I think it's been a while since we ran a highway article so might not be a bad idea to nom one to help out Bencherlite. Truthkeeper ( talk) 23:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I dont have a problem with your adjudication, but what doesnt make sense? All the users have a history of editing the same article and appear to be single purpose accounts, primarily existing to edit articles related to Cyberoam. I've never spent much time at SPI so I wasnt aware the old accounts would be an issue, I also figured that they would be blocked to prevent future promotional edits. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rschen7754, I've started a "question" thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists about this. Wasn't trying to do anything other than make the table readable to people outside the US. Let's see how the discussion pans out? Best to you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
User talk:WofgangAmadeushMozart. I didn't mess with the block, but did protect due to multiple IP edits. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. — Ched : ? 04:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my edit request on Template talk:WikiProject Australia? (assuming that no one else has by the time you see this message). Thanks, - Evad37 ( talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Rschen7754: Please reconsider the block you put on my family and our borders. We only have one computer here or at school and we all use it. You blocked my mom, my dad, and my cousin. If there is something new I have to do to help them, please let me know. My mom goes out to work somewhere else at the beginning of the week and I don't think my dad or cousin know what happened yet, but maybe I could help. Thank you. ForGreaterGlory ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm having problems with my Internet connection and have repeatedly been knocked offline for 10-30 minutes at a time over the last few days. The current outage will hopefully be over soon but no guarantees. I have a technician coming tomorrow to look at the issue, so hopefully it will be resolved by then. -- Rschen7754 public ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rschen, for what it's worth, User:ForGreaterGlory, whom you blocked as a sock of User:Taram, posted a question at the Teahouse question forum regarding the fact that apparently Taram is his mother so they edit from the same computer. I have no idea whether that's the truth, but just thought I would throw that out there for your review. Thanks for all you do. Go Phightins ! 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for reverting this. Much appreciated!-- 5 albert square ( talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
In declining this case, was it because I requested CU? The editor in question is being quite disruptive and appears to have 'got away with it'. RashersTierney ( talk) 09:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You protected the page that leads to the archives, did you mean to protect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive itself? I see a couple of comments by 2 of Bedson's IPs flaunting his sock puppetry. I think I just found a new account which is why I've noticed this and am asking. Dougweller ( talk) 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I was going to post a celebratory message here, but I don't think it appropriate under the circumstances. I will postpone it until tomorrow. -- Rs chen 7754 01:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This can't be done this way, can it?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 06:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You recently closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Longjohnlong, but I think he's reappeared as BunyipMan ( talk · contribs) with a general matching pattern of stalking contributions by Stuartyeates ( talk · contribs) and putting them up for deletion. Not disruptive per se, but worth reopening the case for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rschen7754; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday marks 8 years that I have been an editor here. Over the last few months, as my activity has increased now that I am out of undergrad, I have stopped several times to think at how long it has been. No matter how many times I have tried to quit, and despite all the hardships I have faced here, I am still as enthusiastic as ever, so it is evident that I will be here for quite a while longer
Over this next year my goals are to continue work on California road articles while staying involved in admin areas such as SPI. I've gotten 4 of the San Diego County road articles to the desired quality, and am working on finishing the rest of the county's road articles before moving on to Imperial County and then north through the rest of the state. It may take a long time to get this done, but now that I've put 8 years into getting the infrastructure ready for it, I might as well do it.
I will continue my work with U.S. Roads and with the Highways project in general, helping other editors write articles about their local roads. This is something that I hope to continue well after the California road articles are "finished."
At this time, I would like to soapbox a bit and promote two ideas that I think would improve the encyclopedia:
If we really want to work on editor retention, we need to get editors with specific interests plugged into these smaller groups, where they can form a community and collaborate and accomplish much more than they could individually. USRD is why I am still excited about Wikipedia 8 years later, even as the world outside USRD becomes no longer safe for the average editor. We cannot continue to strip WikiProjects of any capabilities that they still have and expect these groups of editors to stay around and generate high-quality content. Today there are only 3-4 A-Class review processes still remaining on this site, including the Highways ACR. We have roughly an 80% pass rate at FAC over the last 3 years because of this ACR. If only we had more ACRs left, I think that FAC wouldn't be the backlog that it is today (no fault of Ian or Graham of course, who are trying to make the best of it).
There will be times when functionaries screw up and need to be called out on their actions. But we must do it with words and logic, not with rhetoric and pitchforks. I have criticized two sitting arbitrators before, and my opinion that they should have resigned was clear, but I have strived to do so in respect, and I encourage you to do the same in similar situations.
A theme through all of these incidents deals with privacy, be it arbcom-l, CU, OS, or outing. Not everything that is private is bad. I think that today editors hear about private discussion going on and go ZOMG SECRET CABAL! MUST KILL!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!! Having seen a touch of what ArbCom deals with through my own OS requests and other issues (and no, they had nothing to do with Malleus or Cla68), and through my role on the SPI clerk team and on OTRS, I can say this for a fact - there are reasons why some information is private, and very good reasons at that. I can't even begin to imagine all that ArbCom actually deals with that the average editor will never see. A lot of the critics are quite frankly uninformed.
What happens on projects without an ArbCom is that this private information is discussed in public, which is uncomfortable at best and violates the editor's right to privacy at worst. I also hold sysop on Wikidata and the English Wikivoyage and have seen crosswiki situations like this.
We have a fundamental problem with editors going from WMF wiki to WMF wiki asking for user rights like they are toys, and many of them are young. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to protect their privacy as much as possible while still putting the goals of the encyclopedia/database/travel guide/dictionary etc. first. This responsibility does not involve vigilante actions or false or flawed accusations against others, but first communicating with the user, trying to work with them so that they become productive editors, and taking proper action if they do not in order to preserve the integrity of the site.
But anyway, off my soapbox, and back to writing an encyclopedia. It's been a great 8 years so far, and here's to the ones ahead! -- Rs chen 7754 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. i fix the problem, please unblocke my bot. Thanks Darafsh Kaviyani ( Talk) 13:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Rschen7754. Thanks for the warm welcome you added to my talkpage. I could do with some advice as how best to proceed with a discussion that I'm involved in on Talk:Second Severn Crossing, which is now going round in circles.
An editor there has converted all the primary units in the entire roads article from customary/imperial to metric without a substantial reason as advised in WP:UNITS. When challenged he has offered nothing but red herrings in defence. He has refused to accept, even though the article units had been stable for 2.5 years prior to his intervention, that it might be wise to keep the long established units system in place pending the outcome of the discussion. He is insistent that metric units should be dominant in this article, but is unable to justify that position.
Should I, for the sake of peace and harmony, just let his will prevail, or is there anything I could (or should) do to ensure the article gives best value to the readers? Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. The other editor is now actually refusing to discuss the matter further. Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, just to inform you that I mentioned your comments above in a discussion here. You might what to add more of your own observations there too. Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Thanks for realizing how utterly incorrect all of the WikiWork scores were. Without you, the entire initiative would have been a complete waste of time! Note to self: In the future, double check your API calls and make sure that the word class isn't spelled "clas". — Theopolisme ( talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
If you don't mind, I'd like to lift the block. I've communicated with the user by email about the issues here, and I'd like to AGF that this won't happen again. Keegan ( talk) 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
A sockpuppet you banned is using two new aliases( User:Bikramjit1983 and User:Jacksinghsully to make the same unsourced changes. Please use CheckUser to find if these two are the same. Thanks.-- Neelkamala ( talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
![]() At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
So why remove the California (and other) WikiProjects from particular road articles? Because other road articles related to other states don't have them? By analogy, Brooklyn Bridge is of interest to NY, NYC, trains in NYC, and NRHP projects. Perhaps Bridges is the only project that should be of interest for the article. Also, why not add the state projects to those road articles which are of state interest but don't have projects supporting them? In particular I'm looking at Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley. This road is the main drag connecting the towns in the valley. Seems to me adding state projects, especially when they have task forces interested in local areas, is a good method of attracting interested editors to the road articles. Your rationale and guidance will be appreciated. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
He was mentioned in the SPI but User:Zahid2005 seems to fit into the same category entirely. He !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datatune and then set about building his edit count to look like a legit account. But on closer inspection, almost all of the edits were gibberish or pointless red-link creation. I've reverted almost all of them. I didn't think opening the SPI again would be of great value but I thought I'd get your thoughts first. Stalwart 111 05:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you. I am curious, could you tell me where exactly (which policy page) it says that "[accusing] someone of sockpuppeting [is] a bannable offense" [1]? Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé ( talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rschen7754. I decided the best way forward with the above issue was to open a thread at ANI. You may wish to comment here. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 14:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a "TY" note for your input on my talk. I'll have a look at that the first chance I get. Thanks. — Ched : ? 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rschen7754. I have been thinking about setting up a wikiproject (or possibly task force) for Australian roads, and was wondering if you (or any of your friendly talk page stalkers) have any advice? I think that my first step will be to post a message on WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and see if other Australian roads editors would actually be interested in such a project. - Evad37 ( talk) 03:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This account was proven to be a sockpuppet, but why do you have to revert all of their edits? Their opinion can still be valid in AfDs, or constructive edits to articles would be wasted. Please spell out the logic here. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Rschen7754, you have rejected my request by quoting "If you put these crap again, you will be reported.", but that was done long ago and previously I was refused for this harsh edit summary, please see this- [2]. After that I refrain my self, and never be too rude with anyone. Could you reconsider it please?
First and foremost, let me apologize to you. I am sorry for the snide behavior I have done. There is no justification for that. So, a proper apology is due. And I beg your pardon for that.
What initiated this was your initial reply that "most of your concerns so far are ill-founded", which was far from welcoming. Though later you explained that "this seems like copying and pasting random sentences taken out of context and nitpicking at them" (which is a very valid point from your perspective, and is an appropriate reply in a FAC), the initial thinking that my comments were "ill-founded" was the inciting factor. I acknowledge that some of my comments arose because of my limited proficiency in English (such as, the comment on "Bidding was conducted on what was known as Road No. 3A on June 30, 1920", or, the comment "Route 198 also extended onto La Mesa Boulevard and Palm Avenue to SR 94" What is exactly meant by this sentence). That was really poor of me. On the other hand, there were some points (largely content/structural issues, and not prose issues) that were justified (such as, attributing the newspaper quote, wikilink for grade, distance to Julian from where). Lastly, there were many minor points (wikilink for freeway, paper-->newspaper) -- yes, these minor points are nitpicking, sorry for that. However, none of this were ill-founded. Perhaps, the way I wrote was poor. For example, while commenting on the attribution for the quote, I should have linked to the proper policy, instead of just saying "Who told that?". So, let me apologize for the poor sentence structure of my comments. As regards the limited English proficiency, I already acknowledged that in the FAC, and have stopped commenting on prose since.
Regarding the un-addressed comments, most of them or minor (TransNet, incomplete access), and do not have enough merit as to influence the delegate's decision. So, let's not worry over that. Whether I strike (or, do not strike) those out, or whether you change (or, do not change) those things hardly matter.
As I told in the FAC, the pivotal point (for me) remains the early history. I understand the frustration in you as you have dedicated hours and hours of hard toiling into this article. The amount of researching that has gone into this is bewildering. Majority of the sources are not available online, and probably you had to sift through thousands of pages of newspapers/books to bring the article to the present shape. This is simply extra-ordinary, and very rare. However, when I (a reader who is not acquainted with the local geography, and not a participant in US road projects) read the article, that was was the only area that stuck out sorely. I really could not understand the extents of Road No 3A or Ramona Road. And that's why I emphasized that.
It is completely understandable that data on old construction and maps may not be available. In that case, IMO, the article, in some form, should inform that to reader. That information may be in the text, may be in parenthesis, or may be in an explanatory note, or directly quoting the source that was used (in text or in explanatory note), or whatever (bye the way, I have not read that portion of the article in the last several hours, so I am unaware of recent changes).
Another aside, I found this site on Mussey Grade road. This website is likely to be not a RS. But it says "Mussey Grade Road was the main route from Ramona to San Diego for over fifty years until State Highway 67 was opened in 1943." Do you think this could be of any help?
Sorry for this long reply. Moreover, sorry for the condescending tone that I have used in the FAC after my initial comments. I hope you will pardon me. Although I complained above about your initial replies, your later replies were truly welcoming, and justified, despite me intermittently using a unpleasant tone. I really appreciate that. Once again, please accept my apologies. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
At this SPI case you asked that, in the future, a new case be started when new socks are discovered, instead of adding them to a closed case.
Trouble is, that case was closed, but it hadn't been archived. It's my recollection that it's not possible to start a new case while the old one is still on the WP:SPI page.
This kind of situation has happened repeatedly with this particular sockmaster. He likes to create new socks shortly after some of his socks have been blocked or one of his SPI cases has been "closed". I think he does it to taunt us by demonstrating that some of his IPs are still unblocked.
What procedure are you suggesting should be followed? -- Orlady ( talk) 02:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the talk page cleanup. In this particular case, the comment was just too tempting to reply to, so I did, but in general I do appreciate the efforts to clear such trolling comments. Cheers, 28bytes ( talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Rschen, don't the various editors have to be retagged based on AnddoX being the master and the others the puppets? The tags aren't right otherwise as well as they should point to the investigation page. I'm willing to do the tagging, although not tonight because I don't have time, if you wish. I just didn't want to tread on anyone's toes.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a try at compiling a fully-compliant RJL for the British M5, as I think that will aid discussion.
One specific problem is in the UK, the administrative boundaries have often match the centrelines of major roads. For example, city boundary of Exeter passes right through the middle of junction 30. That means its not solely in Exeter, nor is it solely in the neighbouring village. How do US RJLs handle cross-border junctions?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 22:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
GBRint}}
for this purpose (I'm have M62 in my
sandbox). Feel free to copy {{
IAint}}
, {{
ONint}}
or any of the other XXint templates for ideas. –
Fredddie
™
22:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rschen, First thanks for the note. Yea, once in a while I'll wander off to Wikimedia, Meta type stuff, Simple and such - but usually not for long. I have maybe half-dozen or so pics on commons, but sure wouldn't want to be a regular there - talk about toxic? WOW. Anyway - I do want to get involved with Wikidata a bit, not necessarily be an admin. or anything (there's enough headaches with that here .. lol). If you have some good links to help me get up to speed on it, please feel free to drop them on me. — Ched : ? 05:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Gold Standard 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In the conversation I have been having with evad about the startup porcess - he was saying that parts of the template tweaking to allow tagging requires admin status to do it - could you do it if you havent already ? cheers sats 03:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Interstate 70 in Colorado one of yours? I seem to remember Bencherlite asked once about interesting highway pages and I think it's one of the more interesting highways in the country - well I've driven it a lot so would say that - but it's a really well written article. Would you or the highway project be interested in noming for TFA? I'd do it but am not very good at the markup and busy during weekdays. It does have a cn tag I noticed. Anyway, thought I'd plant the thought. Also, didn't you have one promoted recently - the one in San Diego? That could be nomed instead and leave I-70 for a later date. In any event, I think it's been a while since we ran a highway article so might not be a bad idea to nom one to help out Bencherlite. Truthkeeper ( talk) 23:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I dont have a problem with your adjudication, but what doesnt make sense? All the users have a history of editing the same article and appear to be single purpose accounts, primarily existing to edit articles related to Cyberoam. I've never spent much time at SPI so I wasnt aware the old accounts would be an issue, I also figured that they would be blocked to prevent future promotional edits. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rschen7754, I've started a "question" thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists about this. Wasn't trying to do anything other than make the table readable to people outside the US. Let's see how the discussion pans out? Best to you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
User talk:WofgangAmadeushMozart. I didn't mess with the block, but did protect due to multiple IP edits. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. — Ched : ? 04:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my edit request on Template talk:WikiProject Australia? (assuming that no one else has by the time you see this message). Thanks, - Evad37 ( talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Rschen7754: Please reconsider the block you put on my family and our borders. We only have one computer here or at school and we all use it. You blocked my mom, my dad, and my cousin. If there is something new I have to do to help them, please let me know. My mom goes out to work somewhere else at the beginning of the week and I don't think my dad or cousin know what happened yet, but maybe I could help. Thank you. ForGreaterGlory ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm having problems with my Internet connection and have repeatedly been knocked offline for 10-30 minutes at a time over the last few days. The current outage will hopefully be over soon but no guarantees. I have a technician coming tomorrow to look at the issue, so hopefully it will be resolved by then. -- Rschen7754 public ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Rschen, for what it's worth, User:ForGreaterGlory, whom you blocked as a sock of User:Taram, posted a question at the Teahouse question forum regarding the fact that apparently Taram is his mother so they edit from the same computer. I have no idea whether that's the truth, but just thought I would throw that out there for your review. Thanks for all you do. Go Phightins ! 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for reverting this. Much appreciated!-- 5 albert square ( talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
In declining this case, was it because I requested CU? The editor in question is being quite disruptive and appears to have 'got away with it'. RashersTierney ( talk) 09:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You protected the page that leads to the archives, did you mean to protect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive itself? I see a couple of comments by 2 of Bedson's IPs flaunting his sock puppetry. I think I just found a new account which is why I've noticed this and am asking. Dougweller ( talk) 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)