Open main menu

I manage my talk page with the following guidelines to keep the high volume of posts and 230 active talk page stalkers in some sort of order:

  1. 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.
  2. I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent.
  3. I'm less active than I was before; if I haven't responded to something I should have, please ping me again.
  4. Unlike some other administrators, I generally do mind if you undo my administrative actions without discussing it with me, unless it was an obvious procedural error on my part.
  5. I sometimes close discussions when it is clear that nothing good will come out of them. I reserve the right to do so at my own discretion. I also reserve the right to rollback any further comments on that discussion topic.

Short-term goals: TBA

Rating article classesEdit

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 2019Edit

  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)


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 2019Edit

Tech News: 2019-40Edit

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 1Edit

Conflict in regards to US 95 in ArizonaEdit

I hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm having a bit of a conflict with another editor in regards to U.S. Route 95 in Arizona. Greggens and I apparently have very different views on how the major intersections table should look as well as a different understanding of US 95's general routing through San Luis, Arizona. Greggens is insisting that US 95 still follows Main Street from the border gate to Juan Sanchez Boulevard, while street-view images on Google Maps and ADOT GIS shapefiles show US 95 being routed as a one-way pair down two parallel streets to Main Street, similar to the routing of NM 478 through downtown Las Cruces. That and he has removed the intersection with Imperial Dam Road and the Gila River bridge crossing from the major intersection table. Imperial Dam Road is the Arizona continuation of California County Route S24 and the main access road to the Yuma Proving Ground. The Gila River is also a major tributary within the state of Arizona and should be noted in major intersection tables. How do I handle a situation like this within our Wikiproject and is there anyone I can turn to for help to resolve said conflict? I'm very new at all the formalities and processes within WP:USRD and do not want to take the wrong steps. On a related note, is it wrong if the mileage numbers on the major intersection tables reflect the posted mileposts along said highway? I had them set up on the US 95 in Arizona article to reflect the mileposts of US 95, I-10 BL (Quartzsite) and I-10, which are the mileposts that are shown the Highway Log and displayed on US 95 in the field. Greggens changed the mileage to reflect only US 95 between San Luis and Ehrenberg, and I wanted to know if his rendition or mine was the correct way to go about it. Sorry if this is a bit of a bother and thanks for taking the time to read this. I wanted to find another way of dealing with this situation other than changing the major intersections table again to avoid creating an edit war. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 04:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally it is best to start a discussion at WT:USRD to get more editors to review the situation. I agree that we should follow whatever the GIS sources say unless there is a very good reason not to. As far as the major intersections, I could go either way, but then most of the Southern California road articles have seen enough editors edit warring over what is ultimately an insignificant part of the article - that I've become numb to that sort of thing. --Rschen7754 06:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. If I can't resolve this dispute with said user one on one, I'll create a discussion over at WT:USRD. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-41Edit

15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


I saw your name on WT:USRD so I thought I'd ask since no one ever seems to respond to my posts:

The article List of temporary Interstate Highways has been unsourced since creation in 2005 and hasn't gotten an iota of TLC. Some of these are so short-lived that they probably didn't even appear on any maps. What should be done with this list? Does anyone want to clean it up? Should it be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would say delete but maybe there's something I'm missing. --Rschen7754 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-42Edit

23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-43Edit

14:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Rschen7754".