| Revision as of 20:34, 20 October 2012 editMungo Kitsch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers37,963 edits →You've got mail.: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:22, 21 October 2012 edit undoSaboche (talk | contribs)22 edits →You've got mail.Next edit → | ||
| Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
| {{you've got mail}} ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC) | {{you've got mail}} ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Arbitration Committee of Vietnamese Misplaced Pages == | |||
| I don't know the link to Arbitration Committee of Vietnamese Misplaced Pages. Please help me. ] (]) 06:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:22, 21 October 2012
|
Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if it is related to a section above. Otherwise it is difficult to find the posting. Notice: I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent. |
| This is Rschen7754's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
Sandbox
Thanks! I was actually done with that anyways, but had no reason to delete it yet.--intelati/talk 00:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Replied
To your comment at the DR RFC. Just FYI. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter
Hey Rschen7754. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Re:
I'm not going to argue with you, and I accept that the MOS has a recommended guideline for naming conventions, however, as you probably already know (per State highways in California) the official name was State Highway Route 237. My question therefore is, why do Misplaced Pages naming conventions conflict with the official name? That seems to miss the entire point. There is never anything wrong with using an official name. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because Caltrans, the state department of transportation in charge of maintaining and constructing the highways, only refers to them as "State Route x", which is the official name. --Rschen7754 23:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Two things: in the article State highways in California, it says the name is "officially State Highway Route". Is that true or false? And, why do official state documents refer to it in that way? Note, I'm just inquiring; this has no bearing on the review at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Officially" can refer to two things here. The California State Legislature and the California Department of Transportation are two different entities. But regardless of that, in response to your initial question, "why do Misplaced Pages naming conventions conflict with the official name?" WP:COMMONNAME - nobody actually uses that name since there's redundancy. --Rschen7754 23:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, this is a bit confusing. Apparently, California State Route 237 is not the route we are talking about but a completely different highway. Is there a way to make this clear in the article? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Editing. That's the other thing, before 1964 CA used an entirely different numbering system, and I think they may have called the routes something different too. --Rschen7754 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Editing. That's the other thing, before 1964 CA used an entirely different numbering system, and I think they may have called the routes something different too. --Rschen7754 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, this is a bit confusing. Apparently, California State Route 237 is not the route we are talking about but a completely different highway. Is there a way to make this clear in the article? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Officially" can refer to two things here. The California State Legislature and the California Department of Transportation are two different entities. But regardless of that, in response to your initial question, "why do Misplaced Pages naming conventions conflict with the official name?" WP:COMMONNAME - nobody actually uses that name since there's redundancy. --Rschen7754 23:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Two things: in the article State highways in California, it says the name is "officially State Highway Route". Is that true or false? And, why do official state documents refer to it in that way? Note, I'm just inquiring; this has no bearing on the review at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
TFA
You left thoughts on my talk. I responded in general there, but one item I want to point out here: what you called "sneakily scheduling TFAs in the hopes that Raul/Dabomb won't notice" sounds rather misinformed. When TFA scheduling was overdue last week I announced that I would schedule the stork if nothing happened within a day. Nothing happened, I scheduled that one, which had broad consensus. I would do the same again if needed, but hope that scheduling will not get behind in the future. It looks good today, two weeks in advance would be even better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- But you do not have the authority to schedule TFAs. That is what the problem is. If I see this happening again, I reserve the right to take action, including deleting the TFA page created. --Rschen7754 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have a good idea: next time we are down to 4 days scheduling you do the next one! I don't need authority for help in emergency, nor do you. - Of course you have the right to delete a TFA page. This is Wiki, reverts happen all the time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Down to 4 days" is not an emergency. --Rschen7754 00:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's damned close when there have been plenty of calls for things to be queued up a week or two in advance so interested parties have notice and time to buff up the articles and blurbs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I agree that it would be the ideal for Raul/Dabomb to schedule a week in advance. But it is by no means an emergency until we completely run out of TFAs. --Rschen7754 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I remember Kathleen Ferrier, 22 April, author notified less than an hour before it appeared with an inadequate blurb on the day of her centenary. - When I scheduled, Dabomb had not edited in days. Call it a better name than emergency, it was a situation that needed something to be done, so I did, - you (and anybody else) could do the same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I think you misunderstand the protocol. In the event that we run out of TFAs, the emergency blurbs get used first. They're polished and good to go, and the nominators should be well aware that their articles are on the emergency page. --Rschen7754 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I remember Kathleen Ferrier, 22 April, author notified less than an hour before it appeared with an inadequate blurb on the day of her centenary. - When I scheduled, Dabomb had not edited in days. Call it a better name than emergency, it was a situation that needed something to be done, so I did, - you (and anybody else) could do the same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I agree that it would be the ideal for Raul/Dabomb to schedule a week in advance. But it is by no means an emergency until we completely run out of TFAs. --Rschen7754 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's damned close when there have been plenty of calls for things to be queued up a week or two in advance so interested parties have notice and time to buff up the articles and blurbs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Down to 4 days" is not an emergency. --Rschen7754 00:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have a good idea: next time we are down to 4 days scheduling you do the next one! I don't need authority for help in emergency, nor do you. - Of course you have the right to delete a TFA page. This is Wiki, reverts happen all the time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- that would be misuse of admin tools. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, we do deletions like this at GAN all the time. --Rschen7754 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Notifications
For the upcoming TFAs until 8 October, the bot notified one contributor. I notified the other seven, against protocol, please feel free to revert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand "protocol." There are certain tasks that are restricted to the FA director and TFA delegates only. People got on your case because you were doing these tasks. However, notifying primary contributors is not one of those tasks. Sounds like the bot is broken; might want to message Ucucha. --Rschen7754 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- English is not my first language, sorry if I don't get everything ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- ps: I would think the bot is broken if nobody was notified, but Oct 7 was working normally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay I see what you're saying, it didn't pick up the other ones. Still might want to message Ucucha, but it sounds more like a bug. --Rschen7754 07:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not interested in that bot, but people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Except that Ucucha's bot handles several tasks in a semi-automated fashion for the FAC/TFA process, one of which is notifications for TFA selections. The bot is programmed to post a message on Ucucha's talk page when there's an error in making notifications as well. 22:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not interested in that bot, but people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay I see what you're saying, it didn't pick up the other ones. Still might want to message Ucucha, but it sounds more like a bug. --Rschen7754 07:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bzzt. Wrong answer, please try again. There are no such "restricted" tasks, there is merely arrogated authoritah. It's all bluster that was made up. Wiki's are about collaborative solutions, not fiefdoms. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 07:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Familiar; you, Raul, saying something does not make it true or worth listening to. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 07:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bzzt. Wrong answer, please try again. There are no such "restricted" tasks, there is merely arrogated authoritah. It's all bluster that was made up. Wiki's are about collaborative solutions, not fiefdoms. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 September 2012
- In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention
- Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Misplaced Pages participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012
- WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011
- News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal
- Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times
- Featured content: Dead as...
- Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more
Talkback
Message added 22:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jetstreamer 22:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Projections
Fixing the stretching should be easy: there's a tiny button at bottom right that should pop up a box with the project properties related to the projection. Make sure "on the fly" rendering is enabled and then select an appropriated "projected coordinate system" underneath. —Scott5114↗ 08:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I finally decided on NAD83 California Albers. Made California look great, so problem solved there, but I'll need to come up with something else if I want to do maps for any other state. --Rschen7754 16:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 October 2012
- Paid editing: Does Misplaced Pages Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
- News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners
- Featured content: Mooned
- Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty
- WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Young & Talented School of Stage & Screen
Hi there. I saw your comments on TBrandley's page about this article's AfD. Just to clarify, is tagging with a CSD after an AfD has started okay in general, or only in certain cases such as G12? Thanks. —Torchiest edits 01:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is fine; the problem was that TBrandley also closed the AFD, which is not okay; that causes problems in the event that the CSD is declined. --Rschen7754 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. That was my concern with the close as well. —Torchiest edits 01:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Deletion review of AfD that you participated in
As you participated a few days ago in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Admin score
Following up on the RfA thread from last week, I'm sending a message out to a few people who seemed to have positive and/or constructive comments on the admin score tool. I created a subpage where editors could indicate their own preferences for the relative importance of various criteria, but I didn't get as much input on it as I expected. If you have time, would you consider taking a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Admin scoring workshop and adding your input? The most important section is the top section ("Relative importance"). If you have a minute, add a row to that table. If you have a few more minutes, consider adding input to the more specific tables on the rest of the page. Thanks for your help. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Take a look
As much as i like the work this user is doing i notice you blocked someone i welcomed for having a username associated with a group or organization. Take a look at User:HausofGagaWiki too if you don't mind. I didn't realise people could be blocked for such names, only forced to change them. Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- This name doesn't seem promotional to me... --Rschen7754 16:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Haus of Gaga is the same name as the organization/marketing arm of Lady Gaga, so while editing articles related directly to her charity organization (Born This Way Foundation) it seems like a similar conflict to me. That's all.
- Also User:Rschen7754#My role in Misplaced Pages
Like ツ Jenova20 22:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. That could be an excited fan too... --Rschen7754 23:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted page in user space
Thanks for your message. The page you deleted was a test within my user space, not really intended as "promotional material" and not intended to be linked or made public at any time. I am curious to know why did you consider it promotional material and actually how did you come across it. Thanks! Miguel Andrade (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- We have a list of all the new userspace pages created within the last month, and regularly go through them. It looked like content unrelated to Misplaced Pages, which falls under "promotional." If it was just an editing test, I can undelete it if you want. --Rschen7754 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your offer to undelete that page. There is no need. Miguel Andrade (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 October 2012
- News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance
- WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography
- Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk
- Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents
An AFD you participated in has been relisted
After a deletion review, a recently closed AFD has been relisted. I am contacting everyone who participated the first time who hasn't found their way there already. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm a bit sick of the first AFD and the DRV, and the repeated sniping. --Rschen7754 08:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University
| October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited! | |
|---|---|
 |
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 01:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC) |
First Mile Page
Hi there! Just wondering what the copyrighted material was that merited the removal of the First Mile page. The copyright holder may be a part of the project. Please let us know so we can work to resolve the issue! Best regards, First Mile.
- So there's actually three problems here, and I only deleted because of one of them, but all three are grounds for speedy deletion. I googled a random sentence from the article and it came up on another site that is not a Misplaced Pages mirror site, so that is an obvious copyright violation. If you are the copyright holder, you must officially give permission through WP:OTRS.
- The second issue is that of notability. In order to be included, it must have coverage in several independent reliable sources: see WP:GNG. I saw no evidence of that.
- The third issue is a conflict of interest issue (WP:COI). Even if it is not a copyright violation and is actually notable, if you are associated with that subject, you should not be writing that article. --Rschen7754 06:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Warning on my talk page about copyright material.
I responded on my talk page to the warning. I copied an article into my sandbox to paraphrase or quote from in an ongoing discussion. It is ok to remove it. But it is, in any case, in the public domain. The article Anti-Semitism in the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia has signature D (Professor of Jewish History at Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati) and the whole work is in the public domain. quote: The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. See here Regards, RPSM (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- My bad; I saw the copyright note at the bottom of the webpage. You are allowed to use material from it, and that does not violate copyright. However, you must properly attribute it, or it is plagiarism. See Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Attributing_text_copied_from_other_sources for more information. --Rschen7754 08:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference. RPSM (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, i noticed you deleted my user. Wiki has several contributions a lready been verified. I was not advertising, but im new
at this. The information that i used in my bio were on the same guildlines that Craig Kallman used in his bio. Can you help me or explain who to make my bio within the guildlines.
Scott gordon. 10/13/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Russell Gordon (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it was way too promotional, and had tons of stuff not related to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a free hosting service for your own webpage. If you want the name of one, I would be happy to refer you to one. --Rschen7754 17:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Country Music Charts for October 20, 2012
Could you delete again? The user's recreated and seeing as it wasn't a deletion discussion, G4 doesn't apply. Thanks, "Pepper" @ 00:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Done WP:SALT is next. --Rschen7754 00:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
California State Highway 99
Thanks for fixing my oops -- I don't know what happened when I tried to post my changes, but the entire article disappeared except the section I was trying to edit. I was in the process of trying to fix it when you did. Thanks again. OLEF641 (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. --Rschen7754 07:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
California State Route 78
Is California State Route 78 ready yet for the main page?--Lucky102 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I haven't had time to work on it yet. I will try to get to it soon. --Rschen7754 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's going to be at least a week or two. I have two articles I'm trying to get to FAC right now, and it's eating a lot of my time. --Rschen7754 04:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kansas Turnpike
More a lack of time than anything else; I've been mostly editing in thirty- and fifteen-minute spurts at work, so I've mostly been working on removing unreliable sources from junction lists since I don't need many resources to do that. When I have more time to work on the project it feels like a better ROI to do stub expansion (especially since Kansas isn't my primary project). I'd really like the cleanup effort to involve most of the involved parties to collaborate on editing directly, rather than the usual ACR format of "list things for the primary author to do and he does them."
I have the feeling the time problem is going to get worse before it gets better; I am likely going to be in the process of buying a house in the next few months. —Scott5114↗ 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the problem is that nobody else seems interested in working on it either, and even if they are, they have their own projects and priorities. Meanwhile, the article could be sent to FAR. Speaking for myself, I have two articles headed to FAC at ACR (which I don't think I'll ever do again when in school), and I'm getting caught up in more site-wide issues, so my time's pretty limited. --Rschen7754 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking from experience, buying a house is easier if everyone (realtor, lender, et al) is on your side. Lots of waiting. –Fredddie™ 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you live in certain areas of the country. --Rschen7754 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I feel pretty good about my bank, since I've worked with them before on my car loan and they've indicated that they'd like to lend to me again, so hopefully they'll be pretty decent this time. Looks like there's lots of houses available on the market around here, so I can't imagine getting much resistance from a realtor.
- Unless you live in certain areas of the country. --Rschen7754 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking from experience, buying a house is easier if everyone (realtor, lender, et al) is on your side. Lots of waiting. –Fredddie™ 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Back on topic: if we can get the referencing and any MOS issues taken care of, I think that will be enough to guard against a FAR. I doubt that FAR will be that interested in demoting an article just because it doesn't meet WP:USRD/STDS, especially since the argument can be made that it exceeds the standards. I haven't seen an argument for the exit list table (instead of the interchange section) that isn't based solely on "Every other article has a table, so this one should too"; I don't see that being too convincing to anyone outside of USRD. We need to lean on everyone to improve the article now. The point should be made that it makes no sense for any USRD member to do a FAR, since it would hurt the project, and could be entirely prevented by a little work now. The saber-rattling from Dough is particularly tiresome; I don't think he gets that point. —Scott5114↗ 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I fear this is going to come across as pretty harsh, but it has to be said.
- Back on topic: if we can get the referencing and any MOS issues taken care of, I think that will be enough to guard against a FAR. I doubt that FAR will be that interested in demoting an article just because it doesn't meet WP:USRD/STDS, especially since the argument can be made that it exceeds the standards. I haven't seen an argument for the exit list table (instead of the interchange section) that isn't based solely on "Every other article has a table, so this one should too"; I don't see that being too convincing to anyone outside of USRD. We need to lean on everyone to improve the article now. The point should be made that it makes no sense for any USRD member to do a FAR, since it would hurt the project, and could be entirely prevented by a little work now. The saber-rattling from Dough is particularly tiresome; I don't think he gets that point. —Scott5114↗ 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, the RJL issue. Basically all the editors who have commented say that Kansas Turnpike needs a RJL table. Even Fredddie, who confirmed this to me today. This is starting to come down to a consensus issue; while you may not agree with the reasoning, you don't WP:OWN the article.
- Secondly, it seems like you're not really interested in fixing the article. If this was a normal ACR, I would have failed it by now as stale. But it's not; it's trying to head off a potential FAR. Yes, as I've expressed before, I believe that USRD is one project and should help each other out; but we've given you sources and things to try, and you haven't even touched it for almost a month. We all have our own article-writing projects and priorities, and I know what it's like to constantly be busy (undergraduate and now graduate computer science degree), but some of the fixes are pretty small. As the FAC nominator, you're really in the best position of us to fix the article, since you're familiar with the content and sources. If this was User:Moabdave or User:Admrboltz's nomination, USRD would probably take a more active role, since those editors are mostly inactive, but you're here and apparently have editing time.
- Your comments above lead me to think that you want to do the minimum amount of work to prevent a FAR, regardless of whether it meets the criteria. A FA should really be our best work; is this really Misplaced Pages's best work? That's why I'm going back and updating California State Route 78 when I get a chance, even though it passed FA 3 years ago; I've kept it fairly up-to-date, but my maintenance hasn't sufficed, and it needs some updating. That's why User:Imzadi1979 keeps his FAs maintained, even though he has several of them. When you bring something to FA, you basically take on the responsibility of keeping it at FA standards, or risk having it demoted, since you're probably the one most familiar with the subject. When an article no longer meets the FA standard, it gets sent to FAR, and can be demoted. Even Raul654, the FA director, has lost some FAs this way: see Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. You say that no rational USRD editor would nominate a USRD FA for demotion instead of fixing the issues; however, I've even begun to consider sending it there since I'm not sure that the project has the resources to fix the issues (when we could be getting other articles to FA during that time). A deficient FA reflects badly on USRD and the other USRD FAs as a whole, and on the FA standard and Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Rschen7754 05:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the RJL issue, you're entirely correct. I don't own the article. If USRD wants it to have a table, by all means, it can have a table. But if I don't agree with adding a table, I don't have to add one. Anyone has the power to edit the article. I will not stand in the way of adding it, other than stating my opposition to it; I know the folly of edit warring and I won't kick it back out if the project wants it, even if I do still feel it's unnecessary.
- Your comments above lead me to think that you want to do the minimum amount of work to prevent a FAR, regardless of whether it meets the criteria. A FA should really be our best work; is this really Misplaced Pages's best work? That's why I'm going back and updating California State Route 78 when I get a chance, even though it passed FA 3 years ago; I've kept it fairly up-to-date, but my maintenance hasn't sufficed, and it needs some updating. That's why User:Imzadi1979 keeps his FAs maintained, even though he has several of them. When you bring something to FA, you basically take on the responsibility of keeping it at FA standards, or risk having it demoted, since you're probably the one most familiar with the subject. When an article no longer meets the FA standard, it gets sent to FAR, and can be demoted. Even Raul654, the FA director, has lost some FAs this way: see Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. You say that no rational USRD editor would nominate a USRD FA for demotion instead of fixing the issues; however, I've even begun to consider sending it there since I'm not sure that the project has the resources to fix the issues (when we could be getting other articles to FA during that time). A deficient FA reflects badly on USRD and the other USRD FAs as a whole, and on the FA standard and Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Rschen7754 05:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're also correct in that I am not really interested in fixing it. That's because what's wrong with it is all either referencing or formatting issues, neither of which appeal to me that much or which I feel that I am much of an expert on, at least not to the extent that I am uniquely qualified to fix them. Many of the references in the article at present were added by SPUI. (In particular, I have never seen or read Milestones; that was all SPUI's doing.) One of the things that needs to be done is to format the NBI refs to refer to individual bridges. How tedious can you get? FAC requirements have changed a lot since both this article and Chickasaw Turnpike have passed, and I haven't been tracking them, since FAC doesn't really interest me to the extent that it has in the past. Part of that is the bureaucracy that is up now to get on the Main Page—I guess that was the goal that I was going for with both FAs, and now it seems impossible to reach, so I don't bother, I guess? In any event I guess since I've achieved that, it doesn't feel like the article has anywhere to go at this point, so messing with it doesn't seem all that rewarding, at least not to the extent that working on other articles can give. But then again, I never did write Creek Turnpike despite having had 100 sources on hand since 2008... —Scott5114↗ 06:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 October 2012
- In the media: Misplaced Pages's language nerds hit the front page
- Featured content: Second star to the left
- News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks
- Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals
Comments by Moonriddengirl
Would you be willing to explain what she meant in her comments, since she refuses to elaborate? I don't understand her meaning, other than the record doesn't count but subjective memory does. That's what it seems to me she meant, but if not please clarify. I'd appreciate it. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems that there are concerns that the copyvio might not be fully removed, and Moonriddengirl was consulted as the primary force behind WP:CCI. I haven't had that much interaction with Moonriddengirl, but she seems to be reasonable and well-respected, and accusations of bad faith aren't helpful. She was reluctant to get into the matter since there was sensitive information. Just because FAC/FAR/TFA is mystifying doesn't mean that it is corrupt; it took me years to figure out the system, but once you understand how it works, it's fairly easy to get what you need. For the record, the only FA that is blacklisted is Jenna Jameson; Raul has said that publicly before.
- What concerns me is the way you interact with other editors; you assume everything's a conspiracy, and when anyone criticizes you, you go "OH A CONSPIRACY! ABUUSEEEE!!!!!!!" so nobody can actually criticize you. Maybe slightly exaggerated, but you get the point. That's the quickest way to get on peoples' bad sides and sent to ArbCom. Just slow down, and calm down, and assume good faith, and you won't get into these unpleasant situations. Gotta run out the door, but those are the thoughts off the top of my head. --Rschen7754 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Protection...
To which I'd say "No problem" and "yes, that's odd"... Bencherlite 08:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You, sir
are a prince among men. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, check this out. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) You're welcome! I was just working at our own statistics a few days ago, so I thought I'd save you the work of going through the U.S. and Canada road FAs. --Rschen7754 09:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Request
I'd like to take a look at the TFA arb request case filed in August and can't find it. Would you by chance be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here you go. --Rschen7754 02:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Uggh, wrong one. Try . --Rschen7754 02:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I sort of look like an idiot there, and to provide context, I was hoping to be just a filing party only, and that Raul654 and Brer and whoever would bring all their complaints and it would be aired out. Raul apparently hates ArbCom, and Brer posted a meaningless statement, so that failed. --Rschen7754 02:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, if the arbs had taken the case TFAR wouldn't be where it is now, I wouldn't have had such a terrible few days, Br'er most likely wouldn't have been community banned - but the way to go, honestly is by the community, imo, and I was surprised to see that happen. I still think what you did was on the right track - it was a problem then and continues to be a problem. It's about the main page, but no one seems to care. All anyone cares about is whether or not Malleus has said yet another bad word. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been monitoring TFAR for a while now and am aware of the problems. ArbCom could have banned Brer, so I wouldn't count on that. I'm sufficiently concerned about both Raul and Dabomb being mostly inactive, but unfortunately my efforts to ask them about this have not been fruitful. --Rschen7754 02:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, if the arbs had taken the case TFAR wouldn't be where it is now, I wouldn't have had such a terrible few days, Br'er most likely wouldn't have been community banned - but the way to go, honestly is by the community, imo, and I was surprised to see that happen. I still think what you did was on the right track - it was a problem then and continues to be a problem. It's about the main page, but no one seems to care. All anyone cares about is whether or not Malleus has said yet another bad word. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's where the double standard is. They could have banned Br'er, but they didn't take the case. And the underlying problem still exists. You've probably seen that I've left a message on Raul's page. At some point something will have to break over that situation, and I'm just a little peeved that the main page gets so little attention from the community when troubles are brewing. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's clear to me that something needs to happen with the levels of TFA staffing. I've thought of several options, but none seem to really catch my attention right now. I hope we don't have to purposely let the TFA go red to get people's attention. For the record, there is some truth to there being a serious divide between the "admins" and the "article writers"; not as far as the article writers claim, but it exists. I have 2 FAs and several GAs, and am a quite active admin, so I'm trying to see the whole picture here. --Rschen7754 03:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's where the double standard is. They could have banned Br'er, but they didn't take the case. And the underlying problem still exists. You've probably seen that I've left a message on Raul's page. At some point something will have to break over that situation, and I'm just a little peeved that the main page gets so little attention from the community when troubles are brewing. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, there's clearly a divide, but it's not a small problem. I have limited time to devote to this on a volunteer basis and have been an admin and main site admin on a busy board in the past and it's frankly something I wanted to leave behind. Here I'm happy to dip in and write when I have time, but it does seem hard to wade through the drama. There's been a lot it lately. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Backtable concerning my deeds. 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee of Vietnamese Misplaced Pages
I don't know the link to Arbitration Committee of Vietnamese Misplaced Pages. Please help me. Saboche (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)