User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 41

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 30 September 2019

00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Article quality and thoughts thereof

You wrote "If USRD wants to assess an article internally a certain way, then how does that harm Wikipedia?" It doesn't directly, unless it contradicts basic common sense.

Let's take Highway 17 for a minute. Now, when I search for sources, the first thing I see is this which says "One of the best ways to experience the scenery of the South is by driving along U.S. Highway 17, known as the Coastal Highway. This stretch of road runs almost 1,932 kilometers from Florida to Virginia and passes through many small towns – some directly on the Atlantic Ocean coast – that are filled with hidden gems you'll want to experience. Hop in the car and follow our path to a lovely, unforgettable journey". Sounds inviting.

Come to the article, and Christ on a bike, it's dull. "The road runs here, then it runs here, then over here, then crosses this state line, then ... yada yada yada". I realise we've got to write for a neutral point of view, but there's NPOV and there's pointless walls of text. Pretty much every transport article I've ever seen has got something on traffic, protests, public enquiries or objections - politics generally. Again, from a quick scan for searches, I can see harsh criticism over Donald Trump's highway policy plan, or rather lack of one. Don't they do things like the Claremont Road protests in the US - surely somebody somewhere has got the gumption to kick back against Trump's insane "climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese" mantra. So any highway article missing politics fails WP:NPOV - a core policy. Highway 17's article was also bereft of sources, until I added a few (see WP:V), and some "interesting" prose like "After a brief jog east, it runs roughly north" which sounds more like something somebody would do in a tracksuit before breakfast and going to work.

So I think saying this article is of poor quality is fair comment. When people say, "oh, but it's got this section, and this nice infobox, and it's all well formatted" - that's completely failing to see the wood for the trees, and I take a dim view of it when it's accompanied by a complete failure to tackle the substantial issues in the article. You wouldn't expect a well formatted and laid out article on a completely non-notable topic to survive an AfD would you? (Indeed, it's an argument to avoid). As BMK eloquently put it : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. That's because the intervening edits did useful things like replace m-dashes with n-dashes, capitalized the first letters of template names, added interwiki links, vandalized and reverted the vandalism, made sure that bold text was being used as laid down in the manual of style, removed extraneous blank lines and miscellaneous other actions which did not, in any fundamental way, improve the article." Happens all over the place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It may be poor quality (and I don't think anyone is arguing that the article is of good quality), but that is considered sufficient for C-class. One could argue that the History section is "so lacking as to be discounted from the assessment" but that is a judgment call on the part of the reviewer. (And I don't know why you keep bringing up Trump, I think you are making assumptions about my political views that may not be true). --Rschen7754 18:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that about you at all and I can't remember discussing Trump with you in any other thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
See oppose number 9 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS. --Rschen7754 00:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
What was the point of bringing that up? I was trying to be conciliatory and tactful, and you decided to stir the pot. Regarding RexxS' RfA, I am so tempted to say "You lost - get over it" but that argument has been thoroughly discredited. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: You removed this comment but I will reinstate it just to illustrate a point: You come in with your own interpretation of what I am trying to say (which is often not what I am actually saying), and then attack it viciously. I did oppose the RexxS RFA. But as I said at the case request: I generally do wish him well and hope that he does become a good administrator. My purpose was to show that yes, you do keep bringing up Trump for some reason and then attacking me over it. (In the last election, I did not vote for Trump or Clinton). And even with how this thread started: you gave me a long lecture about how the article sucks - and yes, it does, I don't think anybody is arguing about that, what the argument is about is whether the level of "suck" is Start or C-Class.
I think that our interactions would be a lot better if you would actually take the time to listen. I just get this feeling that you think you know what is best for Wikipedia, and if people don't agree, that's too bad, they should either conform to your vision or be chased away. Maybe you don't agree with me a lot of the time, but I have written 10 FAs and served as a steward for one year, and I would hope that gives me the right to be heard. --Rschen7754 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
"I just get this feeling that you think you know what is best for Wikipedia, and if people don't agree, that's too bad, they should either conform to your vision or be chased away" No, you've misunderstood. It's more like "I think I know what is best for Wikipedia, and if people don't agree, they need to convince me why they're right and I'm wrong". I self-reverted my last reply because I thought it would be best to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but anyway I can't put this clearer, I'm not using Trump as a device to attack you or even attacking you. I'm just stating my views, possibly in a strong and forceful manner, but that's it. I'm not going to link to AGF because that's silly, but I assume you are here to improve the encyclopedia (anyone who claim somebody who can clear 10 articles through FAC is "not here" is lying, a troll or an idiot), and it's not so much disagreement as a lack of understanding or confusion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


The Signpost: 31 May 2019

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question about Template:Jctint/core

Not sure this is the right place to ask for help, but hopefully it's not too much of a bother. I've been using Template:Jctint/core to make junction lists for Indian highways, seeing as there isn't a separate format. I'm trying to make a multiple state junction list, but what I have below does not work properly.


StateDistrictLocationkmMileDestinationsNotes
AssamDibrugarhDibrugarh

The region cell doesn't show up despite the formatting being correct according to the Template:Jctint/core page. So my question is if you know how to get this to work properly. If not, that's fine. Thanks for your time! Mausoleum Man (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Do you know why this would be the case? --Rschen7754 01:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The region requires a rowspan even for one row. When Jctint/core was designed, it was assumed that roads that cross state lines would be the exception and not the rule (especially in the U.S.). Thus the default value for regionspan is null. That is, without it, the region doesn't show up.
@Mausoleum Man: it might not be a bad idea to create a wrapper template for India. As it was written, Jctint/core wasn't designed to be used directly on pages. The idea was that it used geographically generic terms and wrapping templates would provide local context. See the differences among {{BCint}}, {{SKint}}, and {{ONint}} in Canada as an example. I'm not saying there need to be 36 templates for India, but it is an option. –Fredddie 01:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Fredddie and Rschen7754: Thanks for all of your help, I am definitely interested in potentially getting a template/templates for India, but I have to admit I have no idea how to go about doing that or even viewing the code for other templates. For now, I'll use Jctint/core just so I can start getting some ideas down, but if someone can take the time to make a template for India soon-ish, I could hold off until that exists. Thanks again! Mausoleum Man (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, misclick!

Didn't intentionally roll you back. Reyk YO! 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blade of Godric

Did you notice how he reverted your comment on his talk page. I am assuming that he doesn't want anybody to see what bad things he has done. He always makes comments like that. About a month ago I gave him a warning as he had removed maintenance tags from an article but he did the same thing (reverted my comments). Then he told me to stay away from his talk page without any good reason. This not an example of WP:Civility. Also some days ago when I moved some article to draftspace (they appeared to be not notable). Another editor warned me politely and guided me to the procedure. Then he showed up and threatened me to get me blocked by admins. This was basically gravedancing. I have less experience than him so he should have been polite and friendly towards me. Instead he bit me. I am a human too and have feelings just like others except bots. This really makes me unsafe and hurt. He always does that to me and other new editors. I would have considered WP:ANI but I am asking you to tell him to be polite and friendly towards new editors. Thanks. Masum Reza📞 05:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it would be appropriate for me to disclose that I have exchanged emails with him about some other matters. Because of that my comment was a bit more informal and while it was a bit blunt, it wasn't a "or I'll block you!" sort of thing. My impression of him is that he really does mean well but sometimes can come off a bit too aggressive.
If you were asking me to take admin action, I probably would have to recuse (and really you would need diffs for all of the concerns you raised so administrators could review the context). --Rschen7754 06:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Will this and this suffice? First one is a oldpage link and second one is a diff. Also here's the diff when he reverted my warnings. Masum Reza📞 06:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, so you would have to go to WP:ANI, not my talkpage. But looking at those diffs, while they are a bit blunt I do not think that it would even be blockable (and accusing them of gravedancing on your part isn't that great either).
Maybe this isn't my place to say this but I will anyway: from someone who was an active editor at your age (10+ years ago!) I would suggest taking things slowly and really listening to any criticism that you receive. It is possible to be an editor but you've gotta show that you're willing to learn from your mistakes. --Rschen7754 06:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I understand. I am trying to learn here. But his behaviour makes me feel annoyed (I am 16 year old). I have interacted with many editors thus far but he took things too far. Masum Reza📞 06:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I dunno. If I complained about every user who annoyed me on ANI, it would take a very long time (and I got a lot worse comments during the 14-16 age range). If it was a personal attack or harassment, I would say something different entirely. --Rschen7754 06:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

PSA

Participate in ArbCom elections. Participate in steward elections. Participate in WMF Board elections. They all can play a role in matters like the present. --Rschen7754 06:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Who are you talking to? Masum Reza📞 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone who watches this page. --Rschen7754 07:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You know, while I personally keep looking at this wiki popcorn turned a PTSD but Stewards doesn't care about this stuff (no discussion among us other than few personally asking 'wtf happened lol') or this wiki at all (because you know), so why do you think SE matters for these kind of stuff? Just curious. — regards, Revi 23:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: Not as much as in this case, but in superprotect we did play a larger role. And if this had been a different wiki, it is possible stewards might have taken on more of an advocate role. --Rschen7754 00:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good ideas

Please add some links for the additional issues you want considered in the case. I have a space limit and can only cover so much at this point. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: They speedy declined it. I don't know that I agree with it, but that is reality. --Rschen7754 00:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Now there’s a motion by AGK to open such a case as a private hearing. We will see. Jehochman Talk 01:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

New section

I was a steward during superprotect. I was worried about this day coming, when we all discovered that the WMF doesn't care about us and that they would run this site into the ground through sheer incompetence.

That day has arrived. The ship is on fire. Do I try to put it out or do I jump ship? --Rschen7754 18:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

July 8 statement

(Crossposted from Meta userpage)

The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior. - Jimbo Wales [35]

WMF Board, WMF, and ArbCom have now all made statements. It appears that there is a significant possibility of an amicable resolution.

But it is a sad day for the English Wikipedia. This is a watershed moment and there simply is no way to roll the clock back to how things were before. While some editors have returned over the last week, others seem burned out and may never return, because they have seen the damage that the WMF is capable of doing to its own community.

As for me, over the last few days I have resumed some of my Wikimedia projects as there is still more work to be done to improve community governance (Wikimedia-wide) and road content (English Wikipedia). Since 2014, my activity has always been subject to sudden increases and decreases, and unforeseen extended absences, and this will continue. (I do know that I will be mostly offline during the month of August). For now, I intend to continue in all of my current roles, though this incident combined with the superprotect one is not very encouraging. --Rschen7754 02:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cards84664 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  BradvChetsfordIzno
  FloquenbeamLectonar
  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes

  CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am on Wikibreak until August 25. --Rschen7754 00:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


Rating article classes

I have a question, since you're the founder of WP:USRD. How can you become qualified to change the rating on articles from Start to C Class and B Class? Is there a special qualification and process a user has to go through? Thank you for taking the time to read this. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707: There's no hard and fast rule, as long as you understand the criteria. Generally when it's your own article, it is the custom to use reassess=yes so that someone else can review it, at least until you've been around a while. (That used to make a post in the IRC channel but I think that functionality no longer works). FWIW, being the "founder" doesn't give me any special privileges. There are editors who take initiative and keep certain parts of USRD running, but it's all initiative and there's no elections or anything like that. --Rschen7754 04:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree

You said at that RfA that "Wikimedia is all about people working together to build something, and if someone cannot raise legitimate criticisms in a collaborative manner, they should not be in any position of leadership on this site." I agree with that. The sad thing is that there are people currently in positions of leadership within the Wikimedia movement who fail to meet the standard you are setting there. I wish there was a way to point this out without making things worse. Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019