Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rschen7754

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 19 December 2012 (→Status update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:03, 19 December 2012 by Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) (→Status update)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

The AWB requests page for USRD is at User:Rschen7754/AWB.


User:Rschen7754/Wikistatus

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 



The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


Questions

Hi. Once the election is over (my understanding from the read of your guide is you don't want to reveal anything until later) I'd like to discuss with you how you feel I could improve my responses. (Though there are some things that obviously I won't be commenting on, like question 8, for (presumably) the reasons you asked the question.) I'm curious as to how you read my responses. In the meantime, I am on editor review and would welcome your review, should you have the time and/or inclination. - jc37 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sure. I'll usually post the rubric once all the questions have been answered, but if you have any questions beyond that, let me know. Ping me if I forget. --Rschen7754 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I've finally managed to answer all the questions on that page. I also slightly expanded on a few of yours along the way. - jc37 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerning splitting the processes

I had initially intended to not comment on what I'm reading in the guides. but I just find that a bit constricting. Misplaced Pages is by it's nature a collaborative, discussion environment. (I preferred when the elections were done like this). And so I'm not going to let me being in the Arbcom election prevent me from commenting. If I kills my chances, oh well. There's more to Misplaced Pages than Arbcom : )

I've already explained my perspective of the various arbcom things this year in answering the questions. But there is an assertion you made concerning FA that I thought I should clarify. My comments concerning MfDing FA was with the idea of what was once known as the "Messedrocker solution" (comes from when esperanza - a project with great goals which became too bureaucratic - was MfD'd).

I've been "around" a long time, and have read over quite a bit more things in Misplaced Pages than may be guessed (as I might guess is true of more editors than we might first think.) And along those lines, I've been a reader of the various things going on at FA for some time (And I'll have to find the link, but I seem to remember being there, "voting" for Raul in the straw poll for director around the time of the merger).

Anyway, my opinion is that the FA process should be split. The page review process should not be in arm's reach of the process which decides whether a page should be displayed on the main page. They're two separate things, and should be separate community discussions (processes), not under the same umbrella.

And if that's done, then I think a fair amount of extant bureaucracy could be culled.

Anyway, I obviously have no interest in changing your mind about me, but I thought I should at least clarify my thoughts since you were commenting about them. - jc37 19:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's where the problem lies. The problem is that TFA needs to be heavily integrated into the FA process. Unfortunately, many of the old FAs are not ready for the main page, and that needs to be sorted out. We also need to make sure that anything that is passed at FAC is ready to go on the main page. From what I can tell, your criticisms of the FA process are largely because you have no idea how it works. I don't expect ArbCom candidates to have written FAs (though it's helpful if they do), but I do expect that they have some understanding of the FA process and aren't going to destroy it out of process just because they don't like it or they don't understand it. To be frank, I suggest that you write an article and take it to FAC before you go start bashing the process; it's not all that it's crapped up to be. (And no, it's not just you; I don't think a lot of the "admin culture" understands the FA process, or why there's a director and delegates, etc. See my comments to Truthkeeper above; there is a definite gap between the "article writers" and the "admins"; falling in both categories, I see that quite clearly). --Rschen7754 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As one of those article writers without a foot in the other camp I too see a divide that's been widening for some time. As for FA, I've never had much of a problem with the process, and even find it to be a haven of practical common sense on occasion. There are of course procedural problems with TFA, notably the lack of timely notification, and I think the problems with many of the older (pre-2006?) FAs should perhaps be addressed, as a similar problem at GA was with the sweeps project, which delisted many hundreds of articles; I delisted 147 myself. Like you, I think that all FAs ought to be fit for the main page all the time, but there's no harm in providing the opportunity for a last-minute wash and brush up by giving adequate notice. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, FA as an assessment of an article, should of course be reviewed periodically. The encyclopedia is constantly changing. We should never let some assessment force editors into a situation where an article is to be considered "set in stone". This is a "living" encyclopedia after all : ) - jc37 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As a veteran of the GA Sweeps project I'd be very much against any kind of regular re-reviewing process, and there clearly isn't the manpower for it anyway. There are clear red flags for FAs, promoted pre-2007 and nominator(s) no longer active being two obvious ones. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I can understand the concerns about "promoted pre-2007" (the presumption being a change of criteria, and possibly a degrading of the article over time), but why should it matter whether a nominator is still active? Anyone can edit. We shouldn't care who past edited a particular page. Merely that we appreciate their contributions to this encyclopedia. I hope it's not that the idea is that a past nominator will "shepherd" a particular article, for obvious WP:OWN concerns. But rather than guess, why do you consider that a "red flag"? - jc37 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of entropy. Without an active guardian articles slowly but inevitably revert to the grey goo that is the rest of Misplaced Pages. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
To elaborate on that a bit, one of the strengths of FAs is that they're likely to present a reasonably balanced view of the topic, due to FA criteria 1b and 4. That is, the most important aspects of the topic should be covered in greatest detail, and the less important aspects more briefly. Additions by editors not deeply involved in the article often have an unbalancing effect–at best, they tend to increase the emphasis on one aspect of the topic to a degree greater than the article can bear. At worst, they could involve tacking on a mention of the topic in this week's favorite electronic ephemeron, some academic's bizarre pet theory about the topic (it's all an elaborate metaphor for lobsters!), nationalist lunacy, or what have you. While having the past nominator active and watching the article can potentially metastasize into OWNership, it's also very valuable in that the nominator has clearly thought about the subject as a whole and has a good idea of how to maintain the proper level of balance and organization in the article, and not be led off on centrifugal tangents. When no one is doing that, articles tend to be slowly tugged off on various tangents by the accumulation of those unbalanced edits. (And if there really is a WP:OWN problem, WP:FAR is available as a tool to evaluate perspectives different from those of the maintaining editor.) Choess (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I actually have had experience with the GA and FA processes : )
(As I like to say: my contribs are my contribs - strengths and warts and all : )
But as I said, I'm not out to convince you of anything. I'll merely disagree with your assertion.
I think that whether something is on the main page is something which could be decided by a simple straw poll discussion. (This of course presuming that what we want on the main page is a showcase of what we as a community feel is the best Misplaced Pages has to offer.)
The question is simply: Is it ready for presentation on the main page? yes? then add it to the rotation. No? Then no. It's just that simple.
Of course the review process can be a guidance/help, adjunctive to that straw poll, but honesty much of FA is merely a form of WP:Peer review. And I think having peer review is more important than whether some page happens to be displayed on the main page. The goal should always first and foremost be to improve the encyclopedia. And if the process at FA is better, then I would think that combining the best of the FA process with WP:Peer review would be a win-win? Especially since it would bring the editors from each process together to collaborate together.
And if the process of the review part of the process is so fundamental, then obviously it should easily be able to exist as a stand alone process.
Part of the problem (in my opinion) is the conflation of these two separate focuses. (improvement of an article vs. determining whether to present the article somewhere.)
I think once these two separate foci are split from being in the same umbrella, then each part would be better and clearer and more focused to each process' goals. And of course there is the benefit of removing/reducing BURO, and maybe even reducing the learning curve for new editors. After all, new editors tend to just want to help out editing, whether some article is displayed somewhere is a behind-the-scenes thing, which is so not required to improve an article.
I understand the benefits of having carrots to help motivate editors, but obviously the carrots can still exist even if the processes are split.
All that aside, please let's not let discussion devolve into an us vs them (FA process regulars vs admins) - even if you place yourself on both "sides" : ) - We're all Wikipedians. And I would like to hope that we all have the same goal of the creation of an encyclopedia. We all just help out in different ways : ) - jc37 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The question I have to ask is, what's broken? There's quite a few things broken about the FA program, but FAC isn't one of them; the delegates have repeatedly been praised. The issues more or less relate to partisan interactions as well as issues at TFA. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. At the roads projects, we didn't initially set up WP:HWY/ACR into a form of peer review, but that's what happened... the problem is, nobody gives a rip about peer review because it's not mandatory, and because once you've got the hang of writing FAs, you generally know if it's FA standard or not; it just needs minor corrections here and there. I've seen plenty of peer reviews archived with nothing other than a notification that someone ran a JavaScript on it.
I don't think we should shy away from talking about this divide, because it is a real problem. The biggest example of it was the Raul/Jack Merridew request. Many of the "admins" went "what the heck why's there a FA director/delegates!??!" and I had to explain it quite a few times following that. Unfortunately ArbCom declined it, which was really poor in my opinion, and we wound up with the same outcome except for Raul654 being chased off the site for a few months; I've already talked about it on Newyorkbrad's blog, so I won't elaborate here. For the record, I don't think either side has it entirely right, and I know there's plenty of editors like me who do both (referencing Fluffernutter's quote on my userpage).
Wow... everyone's stalking my talk page now... this is weird. --Rschen7754 21:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Peer review may currently be optional, but if the (proposed to be separate) "should it be on the main page" discussion process required a peer review, suddenly it wouldn't be seen as "optional". Also imagine if the GA review process and the FA review processes were combined. Then after a review, assessers would have the choice of whether it makes GA but not FA, or if it makes FA. This also would avoid wasting people's time with a clearly FA article, but someone may have well-meaningly submitted to GA. Yes the different processess have different criteria. But that should be easy enough to ennumerate : )
And problems? You noted a few just now. Confusion being a definite part of it. If you have Wikipedians wondering why there is a "council"/"leadership team", then obviously alarm bells start ringing for exactly the same concerns people had about esperanza.
No one, presumably even those well-versed in the FA process wants anything which seems like a cabal (TINC : )
Anytime a Misplaced Pages page/process becomes more seemingly "enclosed" than merely having page regulars, and that enclosure is reinforced by a bureaucratic process, then that process should at least be investigated.
you're welcome to disagree, but anytime anything hinders the sense of "anyone can edit", then that should be reviewed to see whether that limitation on this foundational principle is worth it.
For example, we accept admins as janitors (with not "everyone" being admins) because it's clearly for the good of the encyclopedia. But adminship is constantly analysed, reviewed, and so on. If FA can't stand up to similar scrutiny (I'm not saying it cannot), then that too is a problem.
And if splitting the umbrella up into separate parts deals with community concerns, then that's another win-win.
Look at even how we talk about these things. We have to clarify which aspect of FA we're talking about. Is it this piece or that piece, etc. Straight-forward discussion is complicated even on knowing the wiki-speak terms.
Look at how many times you've suggested that I don't understand the process - even if that were true - what other article-related process would you consider to not be plug-n-play, as you seem to presume that this one is not? XfD? Is it really that much easier to go through the process to delete an article than to assess it "featured"? Is it any wonder there are those who look at this and see BURO?
And by the way, if simple discussion of XfD can be split amongst separate processes (cfd/tfd/mfd/etc), I don't see why the various parts of FA can't be split.
Anyway, let's set the above aside a moment. You mentioned that you also see issues with "parts". I'll ask you what casliber asked me earlier this year. If you had a magic wand, and could resolve things, what changes would you make? - jc37 22:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading through your proposal, it seems like you're wanting to replace one bureaucratic system with another. There's nothing broken with FAC. Just because you don't understand something (and it's clear to me that you don't) doesn't mean it's bad; just because there's forms of authority or "control" on this site doesn't mean that it's bad. This brings me back to the Paula Broadwell situation a week ago - oversighters had to make the decision, and the community had to put up with it; I had to forcibly shut down a discussion on ANI. There was quite a bit of backlash a few threads up because of it. Not everything's a conspiracy (and that's another problem the site's going through, and again it's not just you). In fact, I've even thought about the possibility of a GAN director, because that place is spiraling out of control.
As far as your other question, there's no easy or clear-cut answer to resolve this divide. We can try different things and see if they work, but there's no blanket or textbook answer. --Rschen7754 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
No. combine, while (hopefully) eliminating (at least some) BURO.
And I never said that having forms of what you are calling authority or "control" to be "bad". I'm saying that they should stand up to close scrutiny.
And not sure what you mean "an again it's not you". If you are implying I suggested some sort of "conspiracy", no I didn't (and not sure where that came from)
And I was asking what things you would suggest, even if as a trial.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. - jc37 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
@Reschen. There used to be an unofficial GA director, Geometry guy (talk · contribs). Every process needs leadership, a truth that Misplaced Pages seems to find hard to swallow. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured. It's just gotten annoying that GAN's gone downhill and there's nothing that we can do about it; it's mostly Wizardman and sometimes me taking care of the bad reviews that crop up. I tried closing a six month-old review and look at the grief I got a few threads up. --Rschen7754 03:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I've done a first pass on your questions. I guess my nature is to be as succint as possible, so if you feel I didn't fully answer something prod me. The Matt Honan question threw me for a loop, but I really liked it—nice way to connect wider issues with site-specific ones. Some great questions there, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 05:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 05:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Structured programming

BEGIN Bitch

I formatted my entry to clarify its semantics, following my having corrected others' errors that were hard to diagnose because of the incompetent language and the incompetent coding style.
Please don't reformat my text, particularly since you state that you have studied computer science.

END Bitch

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't, but I almost cried when I saw all that extra white space (okay, that's a slight exaggeration). Indentation is good, but I've always seen breaking things up into too many lines as making code even harder to read. It actually caused me to make an error when I was going through and changing the mod number. --Rschen7754 21:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
BEGIN QueryVariableWriting
You should want to cry :.( anyhow, because you have to change the modulus for each guide. Do you or anybody know how to write a variable (e.g., "NumberOfCandidates") whose value can be updated once?
END QueryVariablewriting
Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The two ideas I came up with were PAGESINCAT-1 (referring to the voter guides category) and doing some sort of subtemplate for each row, then counting transclusions of that template. The first one is not error-proof though, and I suspect that purging might be necessary for both of them (or null edits, which might be worse). Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/2012 goals is a victim of this, as is WP:USRD/A/L - MediaWiki is dumb enough to make you purge every time to get the latest data. --Rschen7754 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

10 REM I wish I knew what all of this meant.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

TINC. Thehelpfulone 02:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Turnpike

I think you're starting to see why I was hoping for more collaboration here. The map archive wasn't available when the article was written, and I don't believe Milestones was either; I think SPUI got it through interlibrary loan. I've never read it myself.

You mentioned the need for a total rewrite on the ACR page. What exactly led you to this conclusion? If we merge the interchange list with the RD, we should have just polishing left, correct?

We should set up a project sandbox, perhaps at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Kansas/Kansas Turnpike, so we can work on the major refactoring without having to worry about leaving the article trashed. —Scott5114↗ 09:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the interchange list needs to be merged with the RD, and will need to be polished as doing a straight merge will look horrible; that might be a total rewrite. There's details missing from the history, and there's a lot of uncited material as well, so that might be a rewrite too. --Rschen7754 18:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Security Essentials". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
EarwigBot  19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over FA status Microsoft Security Essentials

I have opened a dispute over the decision to award this article FA status which you were to some extent involved. You may wish to comment on the case here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend withdrawing that, as it's entirely bogus. --Rschen7754 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

https://test.wikipedia.org/User:Rschen7754/common.js

Confused — why provide an HTML link to the user's talk page? Couldn't you just do Special:Mytalk? Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be either, but it has to be in HTML since I'm pretty sure that links in MediaWiki markup won't work. --Rschen7754 19:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 20:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #33

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Updated demo system
    • Refactored and improved change propagation code
    • Add option for client and change propagations to work with job queue
    • Added filter and preference for recent changes on the client, to show/hide Wikidata edits
    • Pruning of changes table
    • Fixed some issues in the Wikidata Vagrant
    • Added puppet recipe for Wikidata on WMF labs
    • Worked on making statements editable in the frontend
    • JSON of entities is sent to the frontend now
    • Finalized DataTypes extension’s $.valueview system
    • Improved entity selector widget
    • Added Selenium tests for special pages
    • Tracking separate revision ids in Javascript to fix the edit conflict handling
    • Fixed fatal PHP error in Special:SetLabel
    • Entities with just whitespaces as label/description are not allowed anymore
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • upcoming: Offener Sonntag at WMDE’s membership assembly
    • upcoming: SWIB
    • foss.in
    • local meetup in Bangalore
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 09:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Check WT:AC/N

Looks like you clobbered a comment from Risker. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I got all the deleted comments, including . --Rschen7754 06:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Official statement

In regards to User talk:Jclemens#Please_resign, as a guide writer I publicly state that at no time did I receive any confidential material, directly or indirectly, from Elen of the Roads. --Rschen7754 08:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Rschen7754 :) Thanks again for your comments on the Debora Green FAC. Images and I are not good friends, so input regarding them on my articles is always both appreciated and helpful! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't like images either, but I've picked up enough to do a review on anything that isn't fair use or something complicated. I also think that getting a FA is a good experience for a Wikipedian to have, and I'm glad to help. --Rschen7754 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Apologies if this has been asked before, but what is the purpose of the Wikiproject question? It seems that a Wikiproject could be formed for a great many purposes - I've been part of one that created style guidelines and created one that has devolved to being a noticeboard - so isn't almost any answer going to be "correct"? (If anyone hasn't answered the question yet, I'm fine with waiting until they do, but I'm genuinely curious here...) – Philosopher  18:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather post the rubric before answering this, since your question might be answered; I aim to post it today, considering the only one who hasn't answered all the questions is Elen (and her answers are moot at this point). --Rschen7754 18:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Question 2 is up. --Rschen7754 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So my question would get a score of 2? It does make sense now, thanks. – Philosopher  11:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

USRD activity

I realize there's several discussions going on at my "home" WikiProject today, but I will be unable to participate in them since I'm trying to keep tabs on the ArbCom situation and have a busy day IRL. I hope to comment within the next few days.

And for my talk page stalkers, it's at WP:AC/N and is something you all need to be aware of. --Rschen7754 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do I have a ton of caffeine on little sleep when I'm dehydrated and then try to function? I don't know (see similar thread in June where this happened). Responses might be further delayed unless absolutely urgent; otherwise I'll be mumbling gibberish in front of ArbCom. I seem to be mumbling right now... anyway back to homework, and I'll try and get some food or water or sleep before trying to catch up on everything. --Rschen7754 03:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay I feel better and am back. --Rschen7754 06:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Drat!

You beat me in casting the first vote in the ArbCom elections! Drat! (Just kidding, I really don't care, but thought it was funny I missed being first by one minute). Go Phightins! 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha well I was following the drama about it being restarted at the last minute, and I had to fix the ACE2012 template when it borked the link to the poll, so that's probably why... --Rschen7754 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Erratic activity levels

This just hasn't been such a good week for me, let's just say... I assume that most of my talk page stalkers know about the ArbCom mailing list leak. Unfortunately, I'm experiencing an email leak situation in my personal life, and am trying to deal with the consequences of the leak.

I'm not going to lie: there's no way in heck I'll be able to stay away, what with the ArbCom leak going on and my love of editing. But I'm definitely going to be distracted over the next few days as I try to sort out the mess. And it puts the ArbCom leak in perspective: while my opinions regarding both Elen and Jclemens are quite evident, and are not changing, at least this is only a website. --Rschen7754 07:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Talkback

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hiding revisions on User talk:NewGuy1001

I saw you hid the content of some revisions, but one had a summary "(←Replaced content with '...')". It may be too short to hide, but it's something that I noticed. iXavier 07:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I hid the content since the malicious code was being run, whereas it wasn't with the edit summary. --Rschen7754 07:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #34

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Added DirectSqlStore to client so that it can directly access the repository database, and not require creating any tables on the client
    • Bug fixing on the client extension, and preparing it for first deployment
    • Less edit conflicts due to a smarter conflict detection
    • Better recent changes comments on the client
    • Clean up on the backend for entity artefacts
    • The statement UI enables to create statements and displays them, but has still a few glitches
    • The client now accesses the data on the server directly, and the data is not replicated anymore
    • Added a number of profiler calls
    • Special:Contributions displays labels now
    • User preference on the client to hide Wikidata edits
    • Statements can be created and saved now
    • Statements are properly styled in JavaScript and non-JavaScript version
    • Improved JavaScript part of the templating engine
    • Improved entity selector widget
    • Client:Watchlist Selenium Tests
    • Client: RecentChanges Selenium tests
    • Added DataValues, DataTypes, jQuery.ui QUnit tests to Selenium
    • Some PHPUnit test fixes
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • Linuxday
    • Open Sunday after Wikimedia Deutschland’s membership assembly
    • SWIB
    • foss.in
    • upcoming: intro and Q&A in Bangalore
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 08:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello back

Hey, thanks for checking on me. There are a few things happening with me in real life and on the Internet, such as working on Google Map Maker and stuff. Let me know if anything needs to be done. --Geopgeop (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, USRD is still humming along. We're getting more FAs and GAs, and slowly improving article quality across the board, though it's a slow process. In California, I'm trying to get some of the San Diego articles to FA and slowly moving north. All the incompetent editors were sent away a few years ago, but I'm still trying to clean up the damage. --Rschen7754 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Competence is required

Okay, please quit with the wikilawyering. --Rschen7754 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please read, and be aware of, WP:Competence is required. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

... wha? --Rschen7754 03:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Specifically this section, which your actions seemed to imply you hadn't quite got round to reading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you.

I am not sure why, but thanks. I looked where it said to and there was nothing to review. :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem! Figured it would be useful. --Rschen7754 08:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, any chance you would do rollback, too? I would like to try igloo and you need rollback for that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Rschen7754 09:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:ACR

I will still work on it. I have just been busy in real life lately. Dough4872 16:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine; just making sure you haven't forgotten. --Rschen7754 18:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/Banner (December Version)

|- |

In This Issue



|}

Editor review

I've started an editor review on myself at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Ritchie333. As I've mentioned Misplaced Pages:WikiProject US Roads in the review, your feedback would be appreciated. --Ritchie333 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thank you, Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), for your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 17, 2012. I appreciate it. Very much. I means a lot to me that you said that and pointed that out. Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Rschen7754 07:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you've got any advice for me on how to proceed in relation to this? — Cirt (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd lie low for now - the ridiculous nature of the comment has been pointed out and if he attacks you further, there will be plenty of eyes watching. He's already broken quite a few rules... --Rschen7754 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay agreed, sounds good, and I see the MFD was closed as Speedy Keep, so that's another endorsement against the recent inappropriate behavior pattern, thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

oops

Thanks... how did that happen?!? Perhaps I'm just showing why Raul says "Changing the articles that have been queued for the main page is an especially time consuming and error-prone task, so I'm reluctant to do so unless presented with compelling reasons." All sorted now, anyway, I hope. Until the next complaint... Bencherlite 02:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, the protection page gives me a lot of trouble too, for no apparent reason. --Rschen7754 05:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #35

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. CURTAINTOAD!  09:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Don't worry, it happens to all of us. --Rschen7754 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

CO SH 82 assessment

Just curious: what was the reason for the C? Not complaining, just wondering, given everything in it and the meticulous sourcing I did, why it's not a B? Is it because it doesn't have the map image and KML? If so, I can understand (although these will be coming soon).

I ask because (heads up) I'm planning to submit it to PR very soon (and I think it has GA and FA potential). Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the main issue is too much detail in the route description; the stuff about the medians and the guardrail is too much, for example. None of our FAs are that detailed, and that sort of detail tends to bore the reader. The cite to the Youtube video seems a bit sketchy to me as well.
Just as a heads up, I wouldn't recommend submitting to PR. A lot of articles are being archived from there after two weeks with nobody reviewing except a bot, so it might be an unnecessary delay. Once you pass GA, we have WP:HWY/ACR and articles from there have a 90% pass rate at FAC. I know there's some sort of issues that some members of the New York roads project have with the U.S. roads project (which is frustrating, because they won't tell me what these issues are to begin with), but the truth is that we still remain a functional project that fosters collaboration, and we would be happy to help you out. --Rschen7754 06:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't get the one about HWY PR. Is it pretty much as dead as it looks? As for regular PR, I don't mind. I got a review last time around (Independence Pass) which proved quite helpful; and I will definitely be doing one myself as a QPQ.

Since this isn't a NY road, I'm not worried about any issues (and I have heard Mitchazenia talk at length about those, believe me). Yes, it's detailed ... better from my perspective to have too much and then cut than too little and have to add (as, in fact, I recently told someone at PR). Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose I didn't mention HWY PR, but it's dead and I'm considering tagging it historical. I've found our A-Class review to be the most helpful, but having it pass GA is a prerequisite for that. --Rschen7754 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to say, the C-Class assessment looks highly speculative. There is a difference between detail like this and turn-by-turn detail, which we have issues with in east-coast articles. –Fredddie™ 13:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on the Arb/OS thing

I hope you don't mind that I did this. Your post was just a huge blob of text, hopefully this will make it a bit easier to read. Feel free to revert it though. Legoktm (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of the talk page stalkers, yes it's fine --Rschen7754 13:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #36

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployed new code on wikidata.org. All changes can be found here
    • Updated demo system
    • http://test2.wikipedia.org now uses http://wikidata.org for getting language links and wikidata.org edits affecting the existing articles on test2 show up in RecentChanges (if they are not hidden)
    • Statements (think of “population: 2.000.000” and similar things) are taking shape in the interface. They are still pretty buggy though at this point.
    • It is now possible to link to images on Wikimedia Commons in a statement (think of “image: sundown_at_the_beach.png” for example)
    • Links are now protocol-relative (bugzilla:42534)
    • No longer possible to create new items and set labels when database is set to read-only
    • Added more tests to the GeoCoordinate parser
    • Make use of EditEntity in removeclaims API
    • Removed many singletons to reduce global state
    • Made SpecialSetLabel work with non-item entities
    • Improved settings system
    • Improved options of ValueFormatters
    • Improved options of ValueParsers
    • Moved label+description uniqueness check out of transaction to avoid deadlocks and changed it to only be enforced for edits changing any violating values
    • Fixed serialization of SiteArray
    • ~=:3
    • Had to fix reporting of aliases in wbsearchentities again
    • Implemented integration of baserevids for statements UI API calls for editconflict detection for statements/claims/snaks
    • Universal Language Selector fallback fix for Selenium tests
    • Report URL to entity in wbsearchentites API module
    • Moved the demo system to a larger server
    • Fixed several bugs in Statements user interface, most notably, adding Statements to existing sections and layout fixes
    • Added wikibase API module on the client to provide information about the associated repo (e.g. url, script path, article path)
    • A bunch of messages for autocomments were fixed (they are automatically added as an edit summary for edits on items and co in Wikidata - for example: “‎Changed description: Finnish rock band”)
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • WhereCamp
    • Wikidata talk as part of a lecture on knowledge management in Karlsruhe
    • upcoming: 29C3
    • upcoming: Office hours
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
    • Want to help Lydia write the next weekly summary? Let her know.
    • Hack on one of these
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have an unknown amount of edits

Hello,

I have not requested for adminship yet because I have less than 5,000 edits, but can you find out how many edits I have made?

Here is a link to my contributions to see how many edits I have made:

Special:Contributions/Cmach7

Please count my contributions as far as you can. Cmach7 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You can actually look at Special:Preferences to tell you. --Rschen7754 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It says that I have 491 edits. My next edit was made now which makes it 492 edits. Cmach7 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Status update

The winds are supposed to hit 50 mph tomorrow, so I may lose power. We'll see what happens... --Rschen7754 03:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Lost power. My 3G is spotty too, so responses will be delayed. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
And we're back after 2 hours thankfully. --Rschen7754 00:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Rschen7754 Add topic