Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Liscensing

Hi, I uploaded a picture that I was given permission to use by a user on Flickr. This is the image. Please respond on my talk page (I like these types of things close at hand). User:AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sick

I have been sick and unable to edit. Rschen7754 public (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why need to announce it? If you're sick and can't edit, don't edit until you feel better. Mgillfr (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There are several reasons why I choose to do this. 1) As an administrator Wikipedia is a responsibility. Being an administrator is not all fun and games – you have to take responsibility for your actions. Say I blocked someone in error and people are asking me questions on my talk page. It is courtesy to ask the blocking admin about their reasoning before unblocking someone. This lets them know that I am not available and to make other plans. 2) As the founder of USRD I frequently get "how-to" questions about how to edit USRD articles. This lets impatient users know that I am not available to answer questions, avoids impatient ranting at my talk page (such as that from Freewayguy), and lets people know that they can then step in and answer the question if they know the answer. 3) I am typically logged in 24/7 to the USRD IRC channel, and my absence from it is typically unusual. This ensures everyone involved knows that I have not been murdered or something to that extent.
That all being said, most Wikipedians prefer "Oh I'm sorry, I hope you feel better" or even *no response* over "Why [do you] need to announce it?" It's just common courtesy. Also, my sickness is not the time to move into CASH and make controversial changes such as your splitting of U.S. Route 199; that's just unethical. (Don't think that because I can't edit doesn't mean I can't see what you are doing; I was checking my watchlist quite frequently from my iPod touch). --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not do the US 199 split just because you were sick; I did it because I actually had quite a bit of time today aside from my real-life stuff.
Regarding your second issue. Similar to how you mentioned to User talk:Freewayguy that you do not know whether his death threats may be taken seriously, some people including me online do not know whether you're really sick or not. I only respnded to your sick note because at first I saw no reason why to blab it to Wikipedia that you're sick. That's something you'd blab to your doctor, aren't I mistaken? Since there's no feasible proof whether your sick or not, that's why I sort of replied while trying to stand in a neutral position (and not try to hurt anybody's feelings). Mgillfr (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Many Wikipedians do mention their health status on their user pages; there's a inactivity template for doing so somewhere. I don't remember what it is called so I don't use it. Death threats and declarations of illness are very different things; I hope I don't need to explain further. How do I prove that I am sick? Well, at Wikipedia we WP:AGF. And if I was not sick, how would you be hurting my feelings? Regardless, it would be better to not respond at all if you had any questions about what to say. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean to hurt your feelings. To be honest I'm more sympathetic to people I know in real life since I can actually see that they're sick (in which case I'd see no reason to say any message similar to what I said to you). But I do want to say that I'm still ticked off because you keep reverting my edits on a regular basis. Mgillfr (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Because you don't listen and keep making the same stubborn edits over and over again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but you're the one who enjoys reverting after people. I noticed just about everybody else in USRD (maybe even User:Mitchazenia) is more tolerant than you are. Mgillfr (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's because I'm the CA editor who has had to deal with crummy editors. Also, apparently you haven't looked closely at the NY project – they do a lot of reverting out that way. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Do Wikipedians have to mention their health status? I had a fever for a week and I saw no harm in not mentioning the fact that I'm sick. Mgillfr (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No, but then you're not likely to get random impatient rants directed at you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
But my case is different. I'm just a regular editor. I'm not important to Wikipedia (not that I care), but maybe you might be as you're the administrator. Now I see why you mentioned that you were sick, it's just at first I didn't think there was any point in saying so online. Mgillfr (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The inanity of this thread is astounding. Is it really worth keeping? RadManCF (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assesment

As the reviewer on that article I raised the issue of a citation that was confusing and the low amount of references. The redundancies of links in the reference was confusing to myself because of the way the editor chose to format a wikilink into it. While this did confuse me, I understood what was being said and what was being done. The editor was not willing to work in good faith. I see no reason to refrain from GA reviews.

I appreciate the note, but I brought up issues the article had and attempted to be bold and fix the problem myself. My last reference added was a google map. Is Yahoo maps more reliable than Google? No. Is there a reason that a reference cannot be added to the lede? I am not aware of that.

The editor refused to allow the reviewers bold attempt to make simple fixes that did no harm. he could have allowed it to be listed and made any changes after and would not have been in danger of delisting.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the documentation for {{cite map}}? As per MLA documentation style, the author (in this case a government agency) comes first, before the title. I do not endorse the editor's slightly combative style; however, when other (more experienced) editors tried to give input, you refused to listen... did you even read their comments? Finally, you added a link to m-plex.com, which is a WP:SPS and thus not a WP:RS. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I placed that reference. It was removed and I realised I didn't look close enough. I did listen to each person, I was persuaded that some of my standards (which I get from other reviews and watching and learning from other editors) was not actualy GA criteria, such as red links, but even regular links are not to be used in excess.

The unreliable source was not questioned when the editor removed it. I saw that it was a self published site. Editor also removed reliable source and was refusing to allow me to make simple fixes.

As for what is reliable and what is not. It is simply not clear cut. I have an article Wharf Theater where a spotlight reference was questioned becuae of it being a theatre allaince in th Monterey area. The same website is used several times on the Stephen Moorer article placed thre by the subject with COI issues, yet it is the consensus of the page and project theatre to accept the reference. What can I say. I am getting mixed signals there. Which is why when I reference my article s now I use book and journal references that I can link to of Google books.

It wasn't the best situation sir, but I tried every route.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And you are evading my point about the map reference, which was one of the main reasons why you failed the article. Look at the examples on {{cite map}} - they use wikilinks to link the publishers. In addition to this, you added a citation to the lead, which was redundant since the citation in the route description covers it. Your Google Maps citation is flawed as well – the formatting is way off; it should use {{google maps}}. You also added a link to PA Highways, which is another SPS. Since when was there a publisher called "FTP root at ..." ? It gets worse – how do you use {{yahoo maps}} to cite a generic PDF file? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not fail the article for the Pennsylvania Transportation references. They explained that the Pennsylvania Transportation references were to seperate maps for different years that were not available to the general public and the editor had to pay to recieve them. But that confused even me and the many people in the general public may as well. He reduced the link to the first one, but I felt that it didn't need the redundant link but didn't bring it back up.

I didn't cite Yahoo maps.

So, let me get this right, your dispute is my formating a reference wrong, a redundant reference in the lede and not defering to "more experianced" editor in the review. Wll a review is not by commity. I was and still am being treated as if I am an idiot. Thank you. Your not seeing my points so I feel you are not the best to judge me. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And your negligence in adding *two* SPS sources to a potential GA, and your refusal to look at the documentation for {{cite map}} to see that publishers are wikilinked, and not listening to *three* *four* editors telling you that you were doing the review wrong. I am strongly considering reporting this to WT:GAN. I do make mistakes, but I'm not stubborn when people tell me that I am wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If the FTP refernce is wrong....take it out. It's still there. All the problems you are talking about are formating and like spelling, do not excude editors from working on a page. Good faith editors would correct it and let me know what I did wrong. The problem isn't that you think I didn't review the article in good faith, it's because you don't think I know what I'm doing. There are far better ways to get your point across, and much more productive ways to teach someone something. But I don't think your trying to teach me, I believe you are simply scoulding me. I did nothing wrong but make very common mistakes and that is not a reason to ask someone to refrain from working on Wiki.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Amadscientist, Rschen7754 scoulds me a lot more than he teaches me as well. He just acts like he knows everything (which he obviously doesn't), per past discussions on WT:USRD and my talk page (check the history). Mgillfr (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How about this: If I get some time over the next few days or weeks I will review a road GAN properly and show you how to do it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think GAN tells us everything we need to review any article. It's not worth waiting for your next few days and weeks – my real-life schedule doesn't match with yours. Mgillfr (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That was more for Amadscientist, although you are welcome to watch if you so wish. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
But it's clear that you don't know what you're doing, and you don't listen when people tell you you are doing it wrong. These mistakes may be common, but they are very serious mistakes to make. Oh, one other thing: You put the review for the article on the wrong page, which shows that you are unfamiliar with the GAN process; I had to go back and fix it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not very good at the reasonable response thing are you? Well, I went and had a martini and decided to deal with this by requesting adoption. While I make mistakes, you certainly aren't proving your perfect either. Thank you for the eye opening!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rschen, your comments towards Amadscientist are not entirely constructive, you are picking holes in this users good faith attempt to review an article (remember, anybody can review an article) You are getting rather "bitey" in your comments, and it is verging on incivility. I urge you to cool things down a bit, possibly step away from this issue and work on an article. Jeni (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that this user is acting in good faith, but to review a GAN you need to know what you are doing. This user does not, as evidenced by the several mistakes that he has made. I can see one or two, but this many? Of the magnitude of adding SPS to an article? Something must be said. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't have said something, but the tone of your comments is very questionable, it gives the impression you aren't totally assuming good faith (though I'm sure you are). We need to be encouraging more people to review GAs, rather than scare off existing users, otherwise the GA process will just turn into one almighty backlog. Jeni (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Reviewers who don't know what they are doing cause more work, as it did in this case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Users who don't know what they are doing also cause more work, should we ban all them and get them out of the way? Your views are very narrow minded and I'm not sure you are here for the good of the project as a whole. The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, anyone can make mistakes and anyone can fix them. We know for a fact that you are far from perfect, thus you have no right to go digging holes in other peoples edits for no reason other than to try to make yourself look good. Jeni (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If they are stubborn and just going around and creating a horrible mess of articles, then yes (not that this should happen at all in this case; I'm just stating my philosophy). The issue here is that this user failed a GA for no good reason. To be a GA reviewer one needs to know what they are doing and not just a) do a drive-by review and pass the article on the sole justification of "It's good." or b) fail the article on things that are not part of GA standards. Lately at USRD there has been a move to make sure that our GAs are really GAs and that GA article reviews are taking place properly. This particular review caused a red flag when the review was placed on the wrong page, and when I was fixing it, I noticed some of the other problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there are many reviewers that wouldn't have failed this. Seriously, you need to think more about how you talk to other users, then the trouble that seems to follow you around will start to disappear. Please take my advice in good faith. I won't make any more comments on this subject here now, as it seems we are going in circles. Jeni (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Running scripts

If I run scripts, like Advisor.js, how will I know if I am causing problems, such as breaking links on pages?

I like using Advisor.js and Spell.js on pages, but I don't want to cause major problems -- or get blocked. Wikipedia is my favorite website.

Allen (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Check your diff and make sure you didn't make careless mistakes, and don't run it on non-mainspace pages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 13:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me help with using scripts? I see that somehow I have been messing up pages. No, I have NOT been careless; I just don't know what I can and can't do with them. Thank you for your help. Allen (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You will need to ask someone else familiar with the script; I'm not familiar with the use of these particular ones. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Assistance to avoid 3RR

I need to not revert the latest change at {{Boston Road Transportation}}. Essentially the template was crafted over several days with discussion on the talk page and the consensus was to limit it rather than make it all-inclusive. The editor has asserted that all streets in Boston should be listed and I have reverted twice. The idea of the template is "road transportation" for the city, not simply a list of streets, many of which are not a major part of the road transportation network. If the template is made back to how it was before tonight, then I am satisfied and you can go about your busy schedule, otherwise could you please make it so and explain that we need to discuss this first? Thank you – Sswonk (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is stable for now, with another editor making the third revert. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I read the first message but ran out of time to look at it before I had to do some work; sorry about that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:71.8.199.1

You blocked this user on the 17th for its disruptive editing to highway articles. Just to let you know, whilst it was blocked here, the IP has moved over to Commons and carried on doing similar edits to images. (Thread on Commons AN). I've also quickly checked and the account is making similar edits on the French and German wikis, and probably others.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 37

Could you please explain why this article is going to GAR, when the last time I checked, this was an A-class article? --wL<speak·check> 00:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not. Long story short, I planned on taking ~50 to 60 articles to GAR, and after the second or third article, I gave up. :| Note that our A-class standards have changed greatly though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:ALT

Duh (on my part). Thanks. --Fredddie™ 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Project U.S. Roads

Template:Project U.S. Roads 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. Admrboltz (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Project U.S. Roads West

Template:Project U.S. Roads West 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. Admrboltz (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Project U.S. Roads East

Template:Project U.S. Roads East 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. Admrboltz (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Re your edit comment here -- they are indeed similar cases, but in my opinion San Diego Freeway also is not a disambiguation page. The names are not ambiguous; it is the editors' choice that the articles about California highways are classified by route number rather than by name. Frankly, putting "disambiguation" on these pages strikes me as insulting to the reader -- "ha, ha, you didn't know enough to search for the right article." If there were two San Diego Freeways located in different places, then the title would be ambiguous. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

However, this is a disambiguation in that Eastern Toll Road is not a real article. Your comment about disambiguation being "insulting" is, frankly, your own opinion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Thanks!

I just got another heads-up from another user who blocked the guy. He should be fairly easy to spot; he's here in SoCal and he edits articles on the local freeways. Believe me, I am an expert on the Southern California freeway system and I'll clobber him on sight if he starts in on any of them. If I miss him, please let me know if you spot him. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

New Jersey Route 180

I noticed you merged New Jersey Route 180 back into New Jersey Route 72. I am currently working on improving the NJ 72 article and it seems awkward how the NJ 180 information is mashed in right after the NJ 72 information. Mitch had created a separate NJ 180 article and was going to improve it. I personally think there needs to be a better way to handle this by either branching out the NJ 180 information again into its own article or passingly mentioning the NJ 180 history within NJ 72's history as in this version of the article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up myself as part of improving the article as NJ 180 would probably not do good as a separate article. Dough4872 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. It's not my job to fix articles that I didn't mess up. There was a reason why this article was merged; I don't get why Mitch decided to undo it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On bad faith

We are not required to assume good faith given clear evidence to the contrary. The fact that several of these moves have been done in a short space of time, and the comments of those supporting it (throwing around accusations of "British POV" and "admin abuse") to me is"clear evidence to the contrary". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what I saw, and it was not acceptable accusations, even when "given clear evidence to the contrary". I'm warning you. The end. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your help in getting Interstate 70 in Colorado to Featured Article status. Dave (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Be careful

When you merged the Santa Ana Freeway exit list into Interstate 5 in California, you duplicated a few interchanges. I'm reverting the merge entirely, since the article still exists, still has an exit list, and has no consensus for merging. --NE2 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops – that wasn't you. --NE2 06:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to reopen that discussion (regarding splitting the exit lists) after all that crud went down and after we lost a few users. (This may need to occur at the national level – do we want to make this a ELG / USRD standard, or do we not like it at all?). --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Delaware Turnpike

I see that you deleted my note on "shunpiking" (thanks for the new word, by the way) the toll. So...does Wikipedia have an agreed policy of omitting this information? If so, please point me to it. If not, I will restore the info.

My take is that the information on the toll bypass is relevant and useful, and it offers people a totally legal alternative to paying an incredibly outrageous toll. I have spent so much time backed on that road on holiday weekends just because of the queues to pay the toll.

173.73.41.198 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Epic Tale

WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We don't give advice to the reader. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hello, please review the edits of User:Mayor of Gotham City. It appears that this user passed several WP:GA articles without being properly reviewed. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears it's already been reverted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My account

I know that recently you, Rschen7754, have deleted my account, which was: I'm gonna headbutt ya!. I know now why I was banned from editing, the username, correct, so if you or another administrator could un-ban me I will change the username within a week of you letting me edit again. I cannot request a new username at the moment because I cannot edit the request for new username page. And don't worry about me also not knowing what the other policies were, I read them all while I was banned. Anyway, this matter is semi-important. Oh, and if you're looking or have looked at this IP adress's previous posts which are all mostly one sentence saying nothing useful, that is my younger sister messing up wikipedia. If you want to know what username I will want to change into, it's "A High School Student", that is okay right (I'm not sure if it's too long, but if so I'll cut it down or change it slightly)? P.S.- It doesn't matter too much to me, I do have a busy life

Please log into your account – I have unblocked you. Promptly go to WP:CHU and request a username change, and a bureaucrat will take care of it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have, and I'll just wait I suppose, but one question, will the name just change as I log in or, how will it work? Just asking. --(Hopefully) former I'm gonna headbutt ya! Oct. 17
If you are logged in when the change occurs, it should change right away. If you are not logged in, you will not be able to login under the old account; you will then need to use the new account name and the same password. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I CAN'T PUT *A High School Student* IN THE REQUESTED USERNAME AREA! A High School Student was already taken, so I only changed it to this. But I can't put it in the requested username area because then it just goes here- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=*A+High+school+student* ...What should I do (check the username changing page to see for yourself) --Death, the sanctuary for the forsaken-Stark 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Plus, there is no policy for signatures, right?)
Just pick another username? --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever-_-, if I have to --Death, the sanctuary for the forsaken-Stark 02:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Recent ANI Kerfuffle

I noticed the recent WP:ANI discussion regarding your block of an inappropriately named user account. In contrast to the vocal criticism you recieved there, I would like to commend you for your work in general, as well as for that specific action. Borderline usernames are clearly deprecated under current consensus policy, and the local majority at ANI in no way overrides that policy. You have shown good judgement and common sense in this matter, and I regret that you were the subject of such WP:POINTY criticism. Wikipedia needs courageous administrators such as yourself. Best wishes on your future editing, —Finn Casey * * * 06:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, and for your comments at ANI. (I am aware of a few certain users that slam admins whenever there's a few users criticizing them, and I guess I'm not surprised it happened to me.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

NC 87

Hey, Rschen7754, I recently was on the NC Highway-87 page, and made an edit. I changed East Mountain Drive to Owen Drive. I assume it was you who changed it back, so I re-edited it again from East Mountain to Owen Drive.

I, myself, personally live in Fayetteville, NC. I take highway-87 all the time. The city recently got rid of East Mountain Drive and changed it to Owen Drive. Owen Drive turned into East Mountain Drive.

If you need proof of this, I will send you a picture of the highway-87 exit 100 sign.

contact me...because I think (Personal attack removed) for changing someone's edit and not checking out the legitimacy first.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasLOwen (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to use a reliable source. See WP:RS. Also, this looks really bad since part of your username is Owen. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Re: TFA

What would that be, about 11 months, 2 weeks since promotion? Not bad. In fact, I think that might be an improvement. Thanks for the congrats! —Rob (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Erasing cities that passes Interstate 40 in California

why did you erase cities that passes Interstate 40 in California? Why did you? I added Dagett, Newberry Springs, Ludlow, Essex; I didn't add Barstow, California. Please put back those cities again or otherwise I will do it. In Interstate 40 in California Barstow is not that major city in that freeway it is Needles. People will think that the city in that highway is still Barstow. Please add unincorporated cities too. 75.141.100.115 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you messed up the table when you did it. You caused the columns to become misaligned. Please be careful, use the Preview button, and watch what you are doing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(→Road article infobox images: so this isnt unassessed)

This edit made to my talkpage is unclear. Is is a point? ThanksDjflem (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I untranscluded {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} so that it would stop showing your user talk page in the unassessed category. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching that vandalism on my user page. At a guess I would say it was the return of User:Vidak2, who was actually the banned User:Skoojal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Your evidence

Per this discussion, it appears that Ottava Rima did not accuse Davemeistermoab of plagiarism. When Peter Damian did an FAR-like review that pointed to grammar issues, Ottava reminded Peter that poor grammar was not a salient factor in RFA and asked Peter to look for plagiarism instead. What Ottava Rima accused Davemeistermoab of doing was original research. Durova363 15:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See Arcayne's comment in that section for why I mention it there. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom questions – question 8

Have answered all of yours bar 8 – when you say "borderline username", do you mean one that appears to be provocative? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that not all editors necessarily agree that it is provocative. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks – sorry for asking, but want to be sure I answer your questions appropriately Fritzpoll (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Your arb question

You asked: "What is the appropriate role of outside criticism: a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?"

Wikipedia contributors obviously have no control whatsoever about whether and how outsiders criticize Wikipedia, and what Wikipedians think of outside criticism by non-Wikipedians matters exactly squat. I wonder if you really meant to ask to what extent participating in outside criticism is compatible with being an active WP contributor, or something like that. If so, maybe you could modify your question for clarity. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask that question. You asked the wrong person. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks. Question was from Lar. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 12 "individual" questions for ArbCom candidates

Hi Rshen, I note that you're pasting them in for every candidate, as though general questions. This is an extreme example of the destruction of the distinction between general and individual questions (unless you can explain what the real difference is). It is bloating the question page and presenting voters with a large amount of extra reading.

I find some of the questions problematic. Q2 involves an area beyond ArbCom's reach: it is not framed in terms of editor behaviour. Q3 is difficult to answer without knowing more about the context. Critically, Q5 seems to assume that a non-native speaker lacks the intelligence to edit WP (this is a real problem, and if that implication is not reworded, I'm going to have to raise it at the election talk page). Q6 is, equally, impossible to answer without knowing more about the context. Q12 appears to be beyond the ambit of ArbCom, which is not a government, but a process for dealing with behavioural issues.

I am asking you to consider reducing the number of questions significantly, and I suggest that you remove those that are problematic (vaguely framed, inappropriate for ArbCom).

In short, no. Several other editors (Lar, Kirill, etc.) are doing the exact same thing (pasting in their set of questions that they want to ask). You read too much into Q5 – there are other issues besides non-native speakers that the question aims to address. The questions delve into Wikipedia philosophy. If the candidate shares my philosophy, then I trust that they will make good decisions at ArbCom if elected (think of it like the political party system). --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot archived WT:USRD

I believe there was an open discussion there, I will unarchive it. Not sure about the rest. 10d may be a little short at the pace we have been going. Sswonk (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this happened to the scope and the exit list discussions too. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
We could change minthreadsleft from 0 to 3, if that helps. I didn't unarchive scope and EL, not sure about status, something of a mess. Sswonk (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but then stuff like the deletion discussions would never go away. I changed it to archive at 14 days instead of 10. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

ACE questions

Hey Rschen7754, just a courtesy note to let you know I've responded to your question here. If there's anything else you'd like to know, please drop me a line. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754, I too have responded to your question and would likewise welcome any further questions you may have, Best Unomi (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754, thank you for taking the time to look over my answers, on your 'arbcom guide' you mention that one can ask regarding your scoring. If you don't mind, I would welcome your comments regarding the scores I was given. I believe it is important that I understand your concerns. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I cannot do so on Wikipedia until after December 1. If you wish, I can provide you with a copy of the scoring rubric off wiki. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, you are more than welcome to email it to me when you find the time. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Eyebrows raised

A drop of twenty points due to a template error? Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I apologize. For some reason I gave you five points when the maximum possible was one. I know I updated scores once after pulling an all-nighter, and I found several other goofs as well. :( --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Now that the rubric has been released, I gave you five points on question 12, when the maximum you could get was one. That was an extra 20%. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Major intersections table entries for California State Route 1 north of San Francisco

I see your point about criteria for inclusion of intersections, and defer to consistency. I understand the case for less rigorous criteria (for shorter roads or state segments or maybe even county segments here in California) in the discussion you brought to my attention; and comparative road density illustrates another difference between northern and southern California. Los Angeles County alone has twice the number of listed intersections as the northern 200 miles of California Highway 1; but this intersection list needs a lot of work to conform to your goals. I sense your frustration of applying the blunt undo instrument to my edit and thereby eliminating corrections and additions beyond the unwanted junctions. Don't burn yourself out on this. Dedicated editors are hard to find.Thewellman (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

U.S. Route 395 in California – Major Intersections in Mono County

Hello, I recognize that I am somwhat of a newbie here and I am bound to make some mistakes. I noticed that you deleted the revisions I made with an Edit Summary comment of "not the purpose of the notes field". I didn't mean to do anything wrong here, noticing that others had added nearby notes such as "China Lake Boulevard serves Cerro Coso Community College; Brown Road was former US 395 north." It seemed to me that when an intersecting highway is always closed during the winter months due to snow, that information would be valuable and appropriate. Are there specific guidelines for this table? I'm sorry that I can't seem to find them. Thank you very much for your time in reading this.

Nemestrinus (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor that did that isn't following standards. Please see WP:ELG for the standards, and for examples. California State Route 78 is the closest CA specific example I can give. (Unfortunately, CA doesn't follow the standards that it is supposed to.) Thanks for leaving the note; usually editors are just like "screw you" and blank their talk page or just revert. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754, I went back and did what I thought were some good fixes in the location column (without adding any notes), and another editor reverted everything. Perhaps I could trouble you to review the comments I left on the talk page there? Thanking you in advance.

Nemestrinus (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Ping

Just wanted to make sure you'd seen this. Steve Smith (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

FL 417

Please check our FL SR 417. Developers have added a bunch of stuff about an economic development project that have nothing to do with the road itself. I don't think it should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.75.186.11 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I-15

Sounds good Jman279 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Re:Interstate 287

Can you specifically tell me what is wrong with the article so I can fix it? ---Dough4872 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraphs are too long, the picture alignment has issues (should alternate left and right instead of being all right-aligned), no non-breaking spaces, and the prose is boring and has grammatical errors; there are also places where the prose can be refined to prevent awkward phrasing.
I've noticed this pattern in several of your GANs. The topic of your GANs has come of interest to several people on the IRC channel lately. The concern is that you are damaging many of the New Jersey articles, and this is being overlooked by GAN. Please apply the suggestions we have made to your articles; we're here to write quality articles for the encyclopedia, not to get a bunch of Good Article userboxes or to write a book for ourselves. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have split some of the long paragraphs in the article. As for the images, the alignment was done to comply with WP:MOSIMAGES, which prohibits left-aligned images after third-level headings. I will make grammatical fixes to the article later tonight. Would you suggest I open a peer review on this article to get suggestions for improvement? ---Dough4872 19:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that could help. What is your response to the concerns in the second paragraph? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I will go through and make fixes to all my GAN's. ---Dough4872 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This goes for a lot of your past GAs as well. It seems like you're trying to make cookie-cutter GANs just to get a book. I would recommend that you stop making GANs and work on improving your previous articles. Honestly, I'm not sure why you would want to buy a book that has dry and unrefined prose.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I believe that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, you're just trying to keep USRD in shape. ---Dough4872 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's one tip: In a paragraph, make sure that you do not start two or more sentences the same way. Make sure your paragraphs are not too long. Long paragraphs signal poor organization. It also leads to tl;dr on the part of the reader, and on the part of the reviewer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. ---Dough4872 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up: [1] does little to resolve the issues. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a peer review for I-287 in order to receive comments to improve my writing style in this and other articles. ---Dough4872 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SR 20

I didn't "blindly" revert – this is the second time the same user has placed the same overly long, rambling description of the highway. If he/she wants to rework it, great – but It should not be reverted to the exact same thing once again (as it was this time). If you would like to work on it, feel free. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this route description overly long? The current one is way too short. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MerryChristmas!


From your pal,
CG

– ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 04:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Skag's warning

Just letting you know I moved your warning to Skag from the MfD to her talk page. While she doesn't seem to be getting a lot of things, she was right that your comment would serve better on her talk page, as it didn't have much to do with the MfD but was rather a warning to her. Hope you don't mind the move. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 14:27, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Good job

Now I can no longer help fix issues with {{jct}}. Thanks. --NE2 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was mainly to prevent people who don't know what they're doing from editing the template. Unfortunately, it excludes some people who know what they are doing too... --Rschen7754 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

User:I-10

Please look over Baseball1015 (talk · contribs). He seems to be trolling GoRight (talk · contribs) and almost all of his IPs fall into the range of the range block you implemented due to I-10 (talk · contribs). Baseball1015 and the IPs also share the exact same user agent. That seems like pretty convincing technical evidence, but I am completely unfamiliar with I-10's history. Do you think a sock block would be appropriate? If so, I will also provide the single additional IP so you may correct/adjust the range block. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do notice a few behavioral similarities (adding block templates to other users, for example). What gives me pause is that this is a totally different area of Wikipedia than he usually edits. (On the other hand, how do you suggest handing I-10? He keeps editing from that IP range when the range block expires each month, and I can't just rangeblock that whole range long term.) --Rschen7754 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the specific hits on IPs and exact user agent match in conjunction with the behavioral similarities, I'm inclined to block the account. What do you think? Pondering on the range block, considering it's a dynamic IP pool for a major internet provider, I can understand how a long-term range block might not be feasible. What do you think the balance of disruption to collateral damage is with the range? That is, do you think that more disruption would result from a lack of block or more collateral damage from a broader range block? I know that can be a hard call to make. More specific to I-10, how serious is the disruption? Does s/he engage in subtle vandalism or other particular damaging patterns? Or is it just a matter of trolling and general conflict? Vassyana (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This user damages articles and engages in trolling and disruption. He has been the subject of global blocking before, and of the stewards locking his account. He needs to quickly learn that he is indefinitely blocked – about a month ago he created about 20 sleeper accounts and proceeded to start a revert war, where the steward had to be called in. (Come to think of it, I suppose this could be some sort of sleeper account, but there's not really a good way to tell.) --Rschen7754 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Interstate 495 in Massachusetts

Hi – I see you reverted my linkages of towns in the Interstate 495 (Massachusetts) exit list, calling it overlinkage. You'll notice that the exit lists for the connecting interstates in New England are all linked similarly to towns. Was your reversion of my edits just a personal preference on your part, or is there a specific highway article standard (not just general WP:OVERLINK) that the other New England interstate lists are not following?--Ken Gallager (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The general Wikipedia-wide standard is to link to articles only once (not counting the lead). --Rschen7754 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In the body of the article, certainly, but it's clearly not the case for tables, Wikipedia-wide. Why do so many other interstate highway articles have the communities linked on their exit lists? --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
They use the {{jct}} template, which doesn't give an option to turn off the city links. --Rschen7754 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps as a source

After reading the discussion you linked to, I agree that maps are not a primary source. Still, I find it suspicious when a very detailed route description is based on a map alone. In this case, the editor has a lot of freedom to choose which features along the route to highlight, which I'm concerned may constitute original research. Once an editor on the original research noticeboard wanted to use his own software measurement taken from a map as a source for the area figure for a city. I strongly opposed this (because it would be too much work for others to verify it, and programs are not reliable sources) and some others did as well. The route description case isn't that bad, but it's still suspicious. A question: do you think this issue (using maps as a source for long prose descriptions) has been discussed enough? It would be nice to have a guideline about this, if there isn't one already. The User:Davemeistermoab/maps essay is good, although it doesn't contain my point about the editor having too much freedom choosing what to highlight. Offliner (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A software measurement is never a good idea since it will have some inaccuracy at some point. Maps are valid for route descriptions, but they should not be the *only* source for a route description; the description should have other (RSed of course) details. Otherwise, the description becomes monotonous and includes "turn-by-turn" directions. As far as your point about what is significant and what to highlight, roads are not the only field where this could happen. --Rschen7754 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Master Editor Hello, Rschen7754/Archive 12! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it, but I might not be able to reply until tomorrow. --Rschen7754 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

NY pics

Hello Rschen7754, I am sorry about the NY pics, it was never my intention to use the pics without crediting the authors and the site where they came from. If you have an email address I will gladly send you the email Alex Nitzman sent me giving me permission to use some photos on wikipedia. Once again, I am sorry for any problems and I assure you that it will not happen again. Ngs61 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We talked to AARoads, and they never talked to you. --Rschen7754 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BUS M-28 FAC

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)/archive1.
Message added 15:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I have bent and removed the Google Maps footnotes from the article. I assume that was your major nuance from supporting at this point. Dabomb has asked that I have you respond to this discussion, if that is the case, before I renominate the article. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

California County Route S3

The template from the bottom of other county route pages seems to say that S3 exists, yet it redirects to another page. However, when I made a link to S3 from S22 it clearly shows that no page called S3 exists. Can you fix the template somehow so viewers can access S3 from other county route pages? Thanks. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 03:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's worth fixing, now that we've decided to merge most of the CACR articles into one list. --Rschen7754 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is this list? It seems the page titled "County Routes in California" list the routes, but S3 links to the same page. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the relevant discussion at WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

California County Routes "R"

I'm sorry I reverted the edit clearing the pages on the "R" routes; I didn't pay attention to the discussion at WP:USRD. However, I wish to know; will the other categories like "N" and "S" be cramped into one page now? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as Scott or I get around to it. --Rschen7754 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, after these pages are merged, what will become of WP:CACR? It will simply be useless, with only 10 or so articles to keep together. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It will just be redirected to WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Freewayguy seems to be back

209.129.85.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has admitted here to being Freewayguy. Is he banned from editing? If so, he shouldn't be at Wikipedia at all, not even asking questions at the RefDesk. +Angr 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he should be blocked. Immediately. This is a user who is not welcome back. --Rschen7754 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

California State Route 270

That was simply a typo. You've told be this before, so I'm aware that the second words in headings are not supposed to be capitalized. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

County route "zones"

I'm looking at the new pages that bring together all the various county routes and categorize the routes by the letter that starts each route number. Merging the pages into one seems logical since most of the route pages are very short, though the G routes' page is looking pretty verbose at the moment. However, this is the first time I've found these routes categorized by "zone." Sure, county route numbers start with different letters depending on each particular route's region, but do "zones" exist, either formally or informally? Maybe the article titles should be in the form of "California County Routes beginning with X" or something simpler, and the article text should omit the word zone? Michael Patrick (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a good topic to bring up at WT:USRD. I do have some qualms about the titles already, as it's "California County Route", which is inconsistent with the former system "County routes in California". --Rschen7754 21:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

California County Routes

Nice job on the merging of the routes "S". But I did want to note two things. First, why did you omit the junction lists in the list? Second, why do all the sections say that the sections need expansion? Will those tags be removed? They are simply unpleasing to the eye, and any idiot knows that a blank section needs expansion. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The junction lists are nearly impossible to be sourced. You can remove the expansion tags once an appropriate level of content has been added. --Rschen7754 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
But in pages like the "J" page, the expansion tags will almost always be there. Also, for sections like S4, there is little information to be added. These are short routes and can't have a high requirement for length in description. Pzoxicuvybtnrm 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Once an *appropriate* leve of content has been added. --Rschen7754 09:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does S18 need a summary on the "S" page? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 05:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

"High database server lag"

Simply with lack of anybody else to ask, what is happening with the "high database server lag" and when will it terminate? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say exactly what it is, not being too familiar with networking / servers, but I'll say what the effects are. Your watchlist will not contain changes from the last _ seconds. It usually goes away within a few hours (basically whenever they get the server fixed). --Rschen7754 06:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

California State Route 30

Wouldn't it be better to put {{Merge}} instead of {{afd}} on this one? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's several reasons why I prefer AFD. Merge discussions sometimes go stale (as they frequently do at USRD) and AFD has a time limit. Secondly, AFD is more enforceable than the merge system. Finally, the content was already merged, so there's nothing really to merge. --Rschen7754 01:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Why not just boldly redirect? This one seems like a no-brainer now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried. I got reverted. --Rschen7754 03:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

ANI

Because of your recent disruptive editing, I have been forced to start an ANI thread here. Jeni (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_12&oldid=1179228560"