User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rschen7754. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Please visit the talk page of California State Route 15. SPUI has been moving the article and has now proposed the current CA routebox used to great effect and maintained by dozens for deletion claiming it's too long... He wants to replace it with a short uninformative POS box.JohnnyBGood 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your voice might be helpful in this debate man. They're getting crazy.Gateman1997 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• We are fast approaching RFC time for SPUI don't you think? He's been given ample warning and continues to act unilaterally. Gateman1997 05:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then we should bring him there again. I've witness multiple violations of WP:CIV, WP:3RR, and edit warring on his part today. I think it's time he was thrown to them and hopefully gets a nice long vacation. He's doing nothing to improve the project lately.Gateman1997 05:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree you're probably too close to this to impartially rule, even though I do trust your judgement. However if you could bring this to the ArbCom's attention it may do some good here. He's moved well beyond "disruptive" and into purposely destructive. Not to mention rude and uncouth.Gateman1997 05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Probably, but be sure to make note of his current probational status.Gateman1997 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• He also seems to be following the same MO in his actions on I-95 exit list. The article survived AfD this week, yet he's unilaterally turned the article into a redirect to I-95, because he doesn't think it can be salvaged without a full rewrite. Every time it gets restored, he reverts to his redirect. He's missed 3RR by the barest of time margins, with four reverts over the last thirty-some hours. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm looking at WP:AN/I right now. That looks to be the more valid venue for pursuing this. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious admin help is out of the question, and SPUI won't budge on using his userbox (I think he takes affront that we don't like his box rather then editing the project box). I think our only recourse at this time is to continue to revert him if he makes unilateral changes until enough time or incivility has passed for an RFC.Gateman1997 03:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• We should make a few edits to the project box and see if that placates the guy. Maybe remove the legend section and merge the "state law" section into the route number in the box?Gateman1997 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you set these two up for protection from SPUI? He's reverting both to his userbox which has been rejected thus far by consensus.JohnnyBGood 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is unilaterally moving CA 283, CA 99, and also placing his info box on those pages and BUS 80 in Sacramento and I-605. Can't we RFC this guy?JohnnyBGood 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's moved into other articles as well. I too would support an RFC or Arbcom at this stage. We've got several ongoing discussions he's been invited to join but refuses to. Time to get higher powers involved.Gateman1997 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. These moves, and his insistence now on making redirects and links for "CityName (ST)" contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#North America is unacceptable.

I don't have the time to put this evidence together, but I've certainly seen enough violations of (WP:NPA), (WP:CON), and (WP:CIVIL) to warrant it. --Censorwolf 19:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sorry = I've noticed. Again via the same culprit. I will see if I can add my voice to the unblocking chorus. --Censorwolf 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did a lot of work on those articles and felt a little violated. Daniel Case 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing. I see no solution without presenting a full case history and intervention from higher powers. This editor appears to think that he alone can decide how parts of WP will be built. --Censorwolf 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Good. I see this will take a while. Meanwhile we plod on. --Censorwolf 03:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there is a like mind. [1] --Censorwolf 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that would be that easy. That's how WP editors should work together. I was beginning to lose faith. No comments about body parts being eaten... --Censorwolf 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know I modified CA 85 with the jerk's infobox but w/ all junctions. Let me know what you think. If he objects to THAT then we should just keep resisting him because if he's not taking that he's just being unreasonable to the extreme. We may even be able to put the postmiles in there.JohnnyBGood 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it with a few changes real fast, let me know what you think. I'm just running this through in anticipation of the worst. However for now I'm in favor of not backing down for sure.JohnnyBGood 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know why they're currently at "California State Route X"? I mass-moved them about a year ago from "California State Highway X". There were some complaints, but, except for SR 17, it settled down. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there wasn't any consensus. I just came in and decided to move them. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert this to its forked version? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if you stop making controversial moves without consensus. Pot kettle black. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that there was this highway naming issue. Since I created 95% of the existing pages, I thought I would go ahead and move them to the name ConnDOT and the news media use. I have already finished moving all the existing pages but if you want to revert them, then go ahead. So which name should I use for newly created articles? Polaron 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the legwork (fingerwork? :) ) to get the case started. I hate that it came to it, but his edits were getting tedious to deal with and standing in the way of progress.

Call me old school, I guess. :) I came of age on Usenet, where there was a defined process for creating or renaming newsgroups: a Request For Discussion, where the idea was presented, and if it looked like it was getting favourable reception, then a Call For Votes, which was a straight up/down vote, and only then acting on the proposal, if it passed the vote. So I'm used to the idea of discussing first and then acting along the lines of what the prescribed majority favor doing. It looks like the AfD process is more of a CFV with a RFD interwoven (see my AfD nom of polylogue), and I can adapt to that. But when SPUI's idea loses the vote, but he sends the control message anyway...well, that's where we are now. —C.Fred (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your help with this. I really do appreciate all you did both for myself and the Routes as a whole.Gateman1997 04:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good work putting this together. Keep focused on the issue of whether consensus building should be applied and procedures are being followed. --Censorwolf 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The mediation case form quite clearly asks if you would be willing to mediate in a different case. Your answer seems to imply that you expect to mediate in the same case (which you could without the Mediation Cabal, so why should be ask that?). Would you be willing to mediate in a different case? Please fill out the form accordingly. Thank you. --Fasten 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For all your help getting me back. Also, keep up the good fight. We can't let SPUI bulldoze the 5 or 6 of us now resisting him.JohnnyBGood 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He's now moved this article to State Highway Routes? And he claims there is evidence for the name on the Highway codes page... however I find none. I believe we have another incorrect unilateral move by the jerk.JohnnyBGood 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that he's branched into NY routes w/o consensus I think it's RFC time. I've personally had just about enough.JohnnyBGood 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly enough to say about the individual states for their own articles. It's a clear case of summary style. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I just created those two as redirects to the main article. Interstate 78 is one I redid a while ago, and I don't think it's too long for one article. Same thing for Interstate 76. But for major ones like I-10, I-80 and I-95, there is too much for a single article. These are, after all, individual state highways (meaning state-maintained roads, not state-numbered roads) that share a number and marker across state lines. Interstate 95 in New Jersey is a good example of a decent-length article for a small state. That article is 17 KB, over half the "recommended" size. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. But that doesn't mean he should be blocked indefintely, and the block was a false positive from a bot designed to stop vandalism.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! I hereby award a spinning Barnstar to User:Rschen7754 for his dedication to maintaining California state route articles in their consensus defined form and at their consensus defined names. Keep up the good work, and don't let User:SPUI get you down. --JohnnyBGood 19:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to unblock the IP autoblock too so he can continue the edit war :P

1. 17:02, 17 March 2006, Freakofnurture (Talk) blocked #120278 (expires 17:01, 18 March 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JohnnyBGood". The reason given for JohnnyBGood's block is: "pagemove...".)
2. 17:02, 17 March 2006, Freakofnurture (Talk) blocked #120277 (expires 17:01, 18 March 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JohnnyBGood". The reason given for JohnnyBGood's block is: "pagemove...".)

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "until the mediation case goes through" – I don't think there is any defined end to the mediation. I will continue to apply naming conventions as I see fit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I've been fixing double redirects. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's keeping you from working on content. I certainly have been: Valley Boulevard, Interstate 10 in California, etc. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't moved and of the state articles in a few days and frankly I'm through with them, I've been meaning to take myself of the wikiproject page and haven't gotten around to it. I'll of course continue to support any mediation attempts you make Rschen... but frankly SPUI doesn't give a damn about them as evidenced by his comments above. So until that changes or there is a major escalation of this to Arbcom or RFC, this isn't worth my energy anymore. Gateman1997 01:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there is always the RFC or ArbCom option. It's obvious all else has failed. I'd definitely add my two cents to any discussion at either.Gateman1997 02:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than the South Park humor, you said something about reverting some Mediation cabal pages, can you show me some diffs? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 07:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to give him a final warning, because I'm not sure if he was aware that some people might take the "profit" joke seriously (after all, it's not in the main namespace). But once I sent it, Nlu blocked him and you know the rest. About the {{fact}} template, it isn't like he completely deleted the diffs. But he could have found a better way of replying back to them. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job using a standard vandal warning on SPUI's talk page. Is there any particular reason you felt that you couldn't write a personal message, asking him to explain, instead of just accusing him of vandalism? Also, why did you feel it neccesary to laud your status as an admin in this edit? At any rate, SPUI's attempt at humour was not vandalism; the Project space is full of humour (check Category:Wikipedia humor if you don't believe me), and it was not harmful. Regards, Alphax ^τεχ 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'd say an RFC is warranted. He's gone over the line. And for Alphax, there is no humor involved in this instance and SPUI should be smart enough to recognize that. He's been atagonizing that same wikiproject for weeks.Gateman1997 09:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See posts at WP:AN/I. It appears that SPUI is not a supporter of this WikiProject's current standards, and may have been trying to use this as a satire. As for the diff above, I needed to establish that I am an admin so other people know that I'm not some weirdo who created their account fifteen minutes before. People's opinions are mixed on this issue, and your revert to SPUI's version is just bad. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, if you look at the diff, I was reverting bad-faith edits, which I consider vandalism. Opinions at WP:AN/I are mixed about this, some calling it vandalism, some not. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow sorry bout that man. I see it was a sock of SPUI got you blocked too.JohnnyBGood 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please visit California State Route 2 and vote on the page move.JohnnyBGood 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

omg obvious vandalism --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here, JDoorjam attempted to unblock SPUI, but messed up, due to a duplicated User: prefix. SPUI notices this, and uses his other account to notify JDoorjam of this. Then Nlu blocks Sockenpuppe, as a "Sockpuppet used to evade block".

Tell me if this makes any sense to you, because it sure as hell doesn't to me. Unlike, for example, JohnnyBGood, Sockenpuppe is not used for edit warring, vote stacking, etc., and Sockenpuppe is also openly identified by its owner, thus according to WP:SOCK and common sense, it is not an abusive sockpuppet. — Mar. 21, '06 [05:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

For another example, see User:Freaksock. No edits outside userspace and the sandbox. Used for testing purposes only. — Mar. 21, '06 [05:49] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm not seeing a personal attack in that section, are you? — Mar. 21, '06 [05:57] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Can you be any less vague? — Mar. 21, '06 [06:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Ok, you've stated how you feel about the situation, yes, but which words, sentences, or paragraphs are you referring to??? — Mar. 21, '06 [06:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Anything I can do I will. I too have had enough of SPUI's flippant crap, but I don't know what I can add. Last time I tried opening my mouth I got banned indefinitely.Gateman1997 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The JohnnyBGood account had never previously edited my talk page prior to 00:13, March 21, 2006, and there was no reason for its watchlist to contain user talk:freakofnurture. SPUI posted to my talk page at 00:09, March 21, 2006 and JohnnyBGood showed up exactly 4 minutes later to discredit SPUI! It scared the hell out of me when I saw it. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It still wouldn't make any sense. The last time I posted an actual comment at User talk:SPUI was 16:40, December 26, 2005, over a month before the JohnnyBGood account was created. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:06] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

We've been directed by admins at WP:AN/I to initiate and RFC regarding the naming of CA Routes. Any further moves will bring any of us a block. Frankly I'm willing to let them sit where they are for a few weeks just to piss SPUI off since he's banned from moving them too.JohnnyBGood 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I saw that you mentioned to Zscout370 that you were going to collect opinions about an RFC... I'm only peripherally involved in the matter, but I would strongly suggest that this needs to go directly to a user conduct RFC against SPUI. Trying to put together an article RFC would just muddy the waters further. If you'd like help drafting it, let me know. --phh 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you need a fast assignment of a mediator it generally helps when you are willing to mediate in a different case. You state that you would prefer not to because of limited time and subject expertise. A mediator should, of course, have some time for mediation but limited subject expertise for a yet unknown subject is a dubious argument. If you can't mediate yourself maybe somebody else interested in the case would be willing to mediate and thereby increase your chance to get a mediator fast. --Fasten 11:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You know it will happen eventually. But right now I'm only making redirects from the correct names. Atanamir asked me to help him figure out how the state highway system works, and I find the best way to do that is to do a bit of grunt work first. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where? He's under orders not too and can be banned if he does.Gateman1997 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Block him. He's been warned by two other admins at WP:AN/I. We can sort it out later.Gateman1997 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We need an RFC now. This needs to be settled once and for all. And if he changes anything in the interim we have block consensus at WP:AN/I from two independent admins.Gateman1997 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked SPUI from making any transportation-related moves for 48 hours. I urge you not to revert his moves while this gets discussed. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to start an RFC post haste. I know it's risky, but at this point... I don't think we have anything to loose.Gateman1997 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd favor both running concurrently. His behaviour has been untennable, however he seems to have a fair amount of supporters for him personally if not for his position.Gateman1997 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a set of compromise offers on the Mediation page. I'm going to ask you nicely. Could you please make no more edits to state route pages until we can achieve a sort of consensus? Thanks in advance. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the ambiguity, I meant related to the dispute, you're more than welcome to do the other stuff you normally would. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 04:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways#Question for those who want milepost information? Thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several threads I'd like to address, so I'm going to lump them all into one.

• Short version: SPUI's being a bit of a pig but he appears mostly correct and you are making it worse.
• Longer version: The mass page moves are all just regular edits, albiet quite a lot of them. SPUI is combative and flares up when provoked but every time some attempt at compromise has been made he's downed tools on the flame war and gotten right back to work. You (and Gateman) have been talking about mass page protections and RfC's and every other form of punishment but haven't spent much time editing while cool.

I'm pleased by the tone of the most recent edits on the page, however. With regards to the (provocative) additions of the {{fact}} template is to provide a source that supports the statement. That would shut him up faster than just complaining about the template.

brenneman^{L} 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have filed an RFC regarding User:SPUI's disruptive behavior. You may comment or provide additional evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI. —phh 02:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. But where do I add my statements? I pretty much agree with yours, but just wanted to provide support... also there's SPUI's move log and SPUI's block log. You can add that to evidence. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

People sometimes add comments and additional details after their signatures when certifying the dispute; I don't think that would be too irregular. --phh 03:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I add the above links myself? Also added an inside view. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Your "inside view" is well put. --phh 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI has removed all the US Road portal links ("not updated in over a month". I thought it was decided that they were to stay.Rt66lt 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He moved the artcilces as well. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice, threats... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Were you going to block PHenry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, or does this whole "no mass move" thing only apply to people you disagree with? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree in this case. However I thought the page move ban was for CA routes not WA routes? JohnnyBGood 01:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I interpret it as any mass highway moves. Regardless, it disrupts Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just foolish. If someone vandalizes pages, it should be permissible to restore them to their pre-vandalized state. I mean, duh!! Otherwise we just reward anyone who has the persistence to move a few pages at a time in between blocks. --phh 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it's nothing personal, and that you didn't make the ruling. I just think it's foolish. No offense intended. --phh 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got some funny ideas about vandalism. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you've got some funny ideas about bad faith. --SPUI (talk – RFC) 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the situation. You know that your mass page moves will cause many people to be upset, and you choose to do it anyway. You know that you will probably be reverted too. How is that not bad faith? --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 00:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's being done to improve the encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk – RFC) 00:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really... you're destroying the power of consensus by doing these moves. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about my moves, actually, stick with the subject. My moves were not made in bad faith, nor were they vandalism as PHenry so wonderfully declared. Now, how do you explain his comment re: vandalism? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with labeling them "vandalism", but doing something you know will cause problems is bad faith. Such as AFDing a popular page. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The way they're hand holding SPUI especially after the way they treated me, yourself and Gateman. Especially how I was permbanned even though truth and evidence were on my side. I'm starting to wonder if this project is anything but a who knows who club. I could get 50,000 edits pretty quick too making the type of crap redirect edits he does.JohnnyBGood 21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And there is nothing wrong with moving pages to the proper name – the statement is that in cases where this has already happened and a revert war has started, continuing that revert war can be disruption. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Gateman1997? He's been mass-moving County Route pages (to correct names). Special:Contributions/Gateman1997 --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

...use some common sense. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are stressed. I hope everything works out for the better – in the meantime, sit back with a relaxing cup of coffee. -- Natalya 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Esperanza.Coffee.gif

Quite possibly. Please don't interfere. --SPUI (talk – RFC) 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

it's all opinionated. As evidenced in the many polls for this subject, people are even split over it. the current system was also invented by spui (california state route X). Before you came / before any of this WP stuff was started the articles were all over the place; and they wereo nly brought together though one mass page move by spui. To me, the current one is spui realising he made a mistake in the current system and trying to correct it. (After all, in the law, it IS 'state route X' – our use of california before it is purely just for disambiguation purposes). So, I am on SPUI's side in all this; he's just doing the same thing he did before to improve the overall quality of the articles, except now there's too mnay people and some are unwilling to change. That's my opinion. Anyways, there doesn't seem to be any alternative emerging either. atanamir 23:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I moved colorado to the "better" format, is this okay with you?

• it's the same with CA/17, though -- because of a few holdouts, that article will continually be stuck on a naming convention that we know to be less effective. That's basically how i see this dispute. atanamir 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • wasn't that dispute there just with the infobox? atanamir 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Have you started a poll anywhere for the naming convention? I've been looking for it without much success. All the concentration right now seems to be on SPUI and not what matters: a good naming convention. atanamir 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No one has touched this since i made the list, so it's innocuous. That's why I was 'bold' and moved it. atanamir 23:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I won't move any article where there's been recent activity. I only did so with colorado because I made the list, and there's only been a ocuple edits (adding and moreving and adding and removing the us roads portal link); so i felt it was fine. I'm planning on doing sigificant work in colorado soon though... california has too much politics around it now. atanamir 00:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There. I moved them all back. Happy? Improvement is hindered once again. atanamir 00:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The timeline looks great and I'd be happy to pitch in however I can. I do think it'll be important to involve, sigh, SPUI and his supporters from this point forward as equal co-developers of the process, rather than just as active and willing participants... not just so they won't complain, but because it's the right thing to do. I really, really hope this works. --phh 01:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bon appétit. --phh 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like overdesigning the process. Are you going to get 5 impartial admins to play along? --SPUI (talk – RFC) 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has the same problems as any poll – too much groupthink. --SPUI (talk – RFC) 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We can move them to the correct names, for one. --SPUI (talk – RFC) 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously not "what everyone else wants". --SPUI (talk – RFC) 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And like I said, if he wasn't constantly hassled by people such as yourself, he'd be far over 100,000 by now. The best way you can maintain some order is by resigning as an admin. You are living proof that there are no rules left on Wikipedia that cannot be twisted to the point where they are meaningless or paradoxical. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, why do you? If you want mediation, let me know. I know SPUI well, and I hate seeing ignorance and animosity where I can stop it, but I don't take kindly to those trying to bully people, which is what I see you as doing to SPUI. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i'd like the chance to be a third party here, I feel a ray of sunshine in the overwhelming bleakness I see around here all the time. You both seem to be seeing in each other what the other seems to see: an unfeeling, arrogant, agressor. I've known SPUI, if you don't try to "convert" him, he'll treat you fine from what i've seen. And from a looking at a few of your outside contribs, you seem like an alright person too, thus making me come to that conclusion above. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 19:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I get a chance. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, I'm so tempted to recluse from this whole situation. I understand the idea of SPUI changing the pages in Rhode Island, since he's practically encouraged by the lead wikiproject guy there. But he needs to chill with the whole situation. I'm seriously NOT going to be happy if this thing goes to ArbCom. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reworded my vote. IMHO It's only bad if someone actively tries to reverse his actions, as with WP:WASH and WP:CASH. What I don't want out of this whole thing is half the articles in a state go by "XX state route YY" and the other half "State Route YY (XX)" LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So it appears that it was decided that the NCs will be by state, and since neither Virginia nor North Carolina have issues with the NCs, and are in peace right now, that I don't have to worry about it, correct? And I can go on with my happy life, correct? If so, great. And by the way, great job moderating and handling all the situations. --MPD01605 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You moved it to List of Indiana State Highways yourself and said if anyone wants to do route, then do it. IDOT calls them state roads, so i moved it to state roads for the same reason that you said someone could move it to route. atanamir 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Moving to List of Indiana State Highways. If someone wants to move to Routes go ahead though, but we need the caps. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)"
• I didn't do parentheses. atanamir 03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

okay, your little game has gone long enough. Please show one source where it says the official name IS California State Route, because ALL THE SOURCES that have been shown ALL say State Route X or Route X. Here's your chance to convince me. ONE SOURCE SOMEWHERE in the laws that say "California STate Route X is from balh blah blah". If you want a source wher it's State Route X, look at any of the links that SPUI has shown. They all say State Route X or Route X. I really don't know where you got this crazy idea that the government is too "lazy" to write out california. atanamir 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• the PARENTHESIS IS FOR DISAMBIGUATION. Who says The X Files (Film)? or The x Files (TV series)? PARENS IS hOW WIKI DOES DISAMBIGUAITON. Alos, please show me where on the caltrans site it says California STate Route X and not just "state route X" or "Route X". atanamir 21:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also i'm only using the acutal government pages as sources. AA Roads and a lot of indepedent pages, for any state, most liekly use the wrong way. A lot of pages are just "California Highways" or something like that. atanamir 21:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll give you credit for that source. At the same time, a google search for "State Route" site:dot.ca.gov will yield 138,000 results, whereas "Califonria State Route" site:dot.ca.gov will yield only 138 results. Even if you take out the 138 results for "California State Route" (Because the results will be overlapping), the latter still yields a lot more than "california state route". atanamir 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Acutally, on the page you've sent me to, everything below 23 is titled "SR-23 (directionbound)" I know this is a minority; but it's building on my previous post as well. atanamir 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, the ones that are titled SR-xx have been updated more recently (with a new design as well). It seems Caltrans, too, is fixing the erroneous title. atanamir 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
          • [2] okay, go here first. Then on the left, under "Freeway Routes" click like, 4W or something [3] is a direct link. Anything from 1 – 22 (oops) has the title "SR-X" -- state route X. Also, 1-22 were updated YESTERDAY, whereas all the other ones were updated back around 2004. atanamir 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Granted, I will agree that some of the links are not correct usage, but looking through the first 50 pages and discounting the 100 or so "Califronia State Route X" results, a vast majority of them still contain State Route number. And it's tsill 138,000 vs 136. So to be safe we can take off 10-20,000 results if you want of non-relevant results. That's still 120,000 vs 138. atanamir 01:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, one can call them California State Route X. People will also call them California Highway X or even California Route X. It depends on where internationally. I also call it "the X-Files movie", or "the Rio Hondo River in California", not "The X-Files (film)" or "Rio Hondo (California)". Should we move those too? atanamir 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is known as "State Route 56" internationally. [4] "Lessons from America – the San Diego HOT lane" – "The HOT lanes currently run for eight miles in the median of Interstate 15 between State Route 56 and State Route 56 to the north of San Diego, California, and are reversible." Owned yet? --SPUI (T – C – RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... which one looks like a more reliable source? --SPUI (T – C – RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any wiggle in your choice for Highways vs Routes on the above discussion? There is consensus to rename but not nessecarily consensus for the target of the rename (2 for routes, 1 for highways, and I don't have a feeling either way. ;) ). Let me know here if you would, and hope you're feeling better (from the flu notice up top). --Syrthiss 13:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice the flu notice either until this; agree with Syrthiss, hope you get over it quickly. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you get well soon too. =) atanamir 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I made a comment there, with a link to my user space for a new route list style. Comments requested. Thanks — Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what a pain. SPUI moved a couple of pages in Washington, seeing what he could get away with, so I posted yet another notice about it. As usual, nobody wanted to do anything about it, so I reverted him. I guess that was the signal to get going again. I almost prefer it this way: maybe starting up the move wars again will rouse a few admins out of their torpor and negotiations would get started again. List of Washington State Routes did get page protected, finally; I guess that's progress.

I reverted every page in Washington. If you're planning on doing pages in other pages and want help, let me know. --phh (^t/_c) 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've also reverted a few. He's back at it across as many states as he can. JohnnyBGood t c 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• In addition, he's picking nitpicky edit battles regarding several Florida State Roads and the southern terminus of Interstate 75 (he's insisting on "near Miami" instead of the more appropriate (and more correct) "in Hialeah"). All of this has recently been transformed from a striding for the truth to a battle of egos, with SPUI reverting the addition of references and insisting on the misapplication of his favorite two (from a single, often self-contradictory source). B.Wind 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to the RFC and AN-I. For now I can only be on on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. My apologies. I'll move back what I can. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Let me show you an example of B.Wind's edits. State Road 500A is a short connection between US 441 (unsigned SR 500) and SR 19 in Tavares. That section used to be longer, and there are other former alignments. B.Wind is redirecting SR 500A to U.S. Route 192, which has some information on one of the former alignments. --SPUI (T – C – RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I love how you mass moved pages without consensus with this edit summary. I love it enough that I have reverted with the same summary. --SPUI (T – C – RFC - Curpsbot problems) 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He's quietly moving all CA route pages. JohnnyBGood t c 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways. You know the arguments better then me. JohnnyBGood t c 20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Put mildly the shit hit the perverbial fan. He went ahead and started moving the remaining half of CASRs that were at California State Route XX over to State Route XX (California). I countered by moving all of them back. He countered me on about half of them, I countered back on about half of those. Plus in the middle of it Nohat attacked CA 17 and put it back at Califoria State Highway 17. Plus SPUI and I have been going at it over Interstate 93 and Interstate 75. JohnnyBGood t c 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In the road naming dispute, you have been named in a disputant @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration this is the required notification diff -- Tawker 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He changed the list for Utah for his State Route X (Utah) and Interstate 15 (Utah) scheme... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And all the created state routes. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Aslo did the same for at least that i can see on Pennsylvania highway, PA Route 611. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been nice to him up until this point, but that's just moronic. Didn't he say so himself that we don't title articles using abbreviations? Maybe we should start moving the Washington State articles to SR 3 and the like? Ummm, no... -- Northenglish 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 You're just trying to confuse the issue. The names of the routes, as used by WSDOT, are State Route X, abbreviated SR X.
 We don't put pages at abbreviations – Interstate 90, not I-90. --SPUI (talk – don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:52,
 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof of my previous comment found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways -- Northenglish 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little cautious on doing this, but I started the WikiProject Virginia Highways yesterday, and our NCs state that the article is "Virginia State Highway X". Route 895 (Virginia) and Route 76 (Virginia) are a few of the articles that do not follow this NC. I found that much of the articles that follow this are in the Richmond area. Looking at the history, it was SPUI who moved those from Virginia State Highway 895, etc. There are other articles in the state, such as Virginia State Highway 86 (in the south of the state) and Virginia State Highway 28 and 267 that both follow our current convention. Seeing the controversy that is currently ensuing, I don't know what I should do about the vigilante articles. If I'm correct, it would seem that we are coming to an understanding that the NCs are by highway system, correct? I'm holding off on moving the other articles because I don't want it to be taken as an act of hostility and cause me to get banned or anything. But I do need some help because this whole situation is very confusing to me. So two questions:

1) Are we coming to a general agreement like the one I mentioned above?

2) If so, and I do move the articles in say, a week, will there be any repercussions to me for bringing them in line with the NCs of our WikiProject?

Thanks, --MPD01605 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Every record--both published by WSDOT, and every map I've seen that marks Purdy Drive as a numbered highway--lists it as 302 Spur. There is no 302 Spur in Allyn. 302 was rerouted north of Allyn a few years ago, but the old routing is no longer in the state highway system. -- Northenglish 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how much longer we're going to have to wait to get a ruling on this? JohnnyBGood t c 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Arbcom has accepted the RFA however for the wrong reason it appears. JohnnyBGood t c 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any decisions on this? I have people asking me questions, creating new Virginia highway pages not in line with what we're currently trying to do, and I don't know what to tell them. Thanks, --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What evidence shall we gather together? JohnnyBGood t c 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making articles worse. I will continue to revert, as my reversions improve the articles. --SPUI (T – C) 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop going against consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop going against common sense. --SPUI (T – C) 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Common sense means going with what people want. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong and you know it. --SPUI (T – C) 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why that page isn't in the WP namespace. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice non sequitur. --SPUI (T – C) 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia explains a philosophy doesn't necessarily make it correct. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because you and a bunch of other misguided editors think your crap infobox is better doesn't make it so. --SPUI (T – C) 23:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

POV. Go and get consensus for ur infobox.--Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ur infobox sux lol --SPUI (T – C) 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. We're down to juvenile responses now. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

no u started da shitty speling lol

Seriously, I don't get what you see in that infobox. It's bloated shit that you've gotten used to. --SPUI (T – C) 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

POV. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

<[me]> bloody hell, does anyone here think Special:PermanentLink/57439311 is better than Special:PermanentLink/57439685 ?

<spectie> [me], SPUIs infobox is better

Other outside views have been similar. --SPUI (T – C) 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was to modify routeboxca2, despite what SPUI would like to admit. -- Northenglish 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"The result of the groupthink was to modify routeboxca2, despite what SPUI would like to admit." Fixed for you. Oh, and I do agree that your misguided "debate" had a "result" to bloat the infoboxes. --SPUI (T – C) 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I like mine the best. So nyeh. </sarcasm> (I also believe in the concepts of "simpler is better" and "modularity", so YMMV) —Rob (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice on WP:WASH that you're listed as the "leader" of the project. IMHO, there's nothing in the WikiProject that requires a defined leader, but would you like me to take over this post for you? -- Northenglish 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob. Email me if there's probs. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 18:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice your edits to add "references" to some articles have placed a good citation reference in the associated template. Only thing is the template appears after the "references" tag in the articles so nothing appears. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Thanks. --Facto 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WOT has opened its straw poll, and is open to discussion. Rangeley 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the war has gone global [5]JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The case has been closed and the final decisions published on above's link. -- Drini 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom has placed me under what I consider to be an unjust probation, so I am leaving Wikipedia until it is lifted. Take care, and thanks for your help fighting the good fight. —phh (^t/_c) 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please join the civil discussion on WT:WASH regarding naming conventions and the infobox so that we can get consensus and put this ugly mess behind us. -- NORTH ^talk 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:SPUI

--William Allen Simpson 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea, I just saw his main page saying he was leaving so I left a note. -Ravedave 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to touch the California WikiProject with a 10-foot pole. That's where the whole mess started, and to be frank, it scares me. (You can apply this to infobox question you left on WT:WASH as well -- I would humbly recommend a shorter infobox, but I'm not part of that WikiProject, and won't participate in any discussions there.) Nevertheless, I do have a question about goings-on in the Golden State...

You said in WP:AE that SPUI's been changing over infoboxes again without consensus. Was this after ArbCom closed? And do you have diffs? I'd like to participate in that discussion once I get some information in line. -- NORTH ^talk 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask if there was a reason to remove {{Wisconsin stub}} from the list? I put it on because I had hoped to maintain connection to WP:WPWI since this was also a parent. Or do you plan to propose a stub category for this project sometime in the future? I'm ok with what you did, I'm just curious about the reasoning behind it. Thanks. --master_son^{Lets talk} 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ahh, see's the light.  :) Well at the rate we're going there may be a stub for the highways by next month... Thankx :D --master_son^{Lets talk} 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling that we're slowly inching back to square one. SPUI getting his way and us getting blocked for pointing out he's violating policies? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

These are speedy since it is just a cap fix for the category name. What you do with the article names is a different issue. Would you please consider dropping your comment so that it can be kept as a speedy within the CfD criteria? Vegaswikian 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that SPUI is a hard person to deal with at times. I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. I did it in a moment of stupidity and frustration. Go ahead and apply a block for a term as you see fit. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

After recent events on WT:NJSCR, I have added my comments to the most recent SPUI section on WP:AE. Any feedback you have would be appreciated, as well as perhaps backup in my current debate with SPUI on WT:NJSCR. -- NORTH ^talk 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and left Wikipedia. Good luck with all your future interactions. I have, by default, listed you as the leader once again of WP:WASH. -- NORTH ^talk 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the save man. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA!

Am I missing something here? If this is a disruptive user and you're an admin, why don't you block him, and, if he continues such behaviour, add increasingly longer blocks? Presumably he has no special exemption from good behaviour which other editors are expected to adhere to. Tyrenius 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Rschen was involved in the arbcom as well to block SPUI would probably be a conflict of interest. He's taken crap for blocking him before from other admins. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like SPUI has something against you again... sigh. He gets off of his block and goes in a tit-for-tat war based on your defination of the word "fix." Also, thanks Rschen7754 for removing SPUI's erroneous tags. They were unwarranted tags and based without discussion or merit. You only did the task that I was going to do (eventually) and had done only to two or three Ohio pages. I wonder if I had removed them all, if he would have pointed fingers at me. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from camping today sorry.HurricaneCraze32 22:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer some questions you posed to me on my talk page:

1. I'm completely aware that this is unacceptable. I did it in a moment of frustration and I was willing to take the penalty for it. Actually, I know I'm still possibly facing the penalty for it.
2. Nobody has hijacked my account. See this edit to Table Rock Lake. (It still needs a picture, but that'll come eventually.) Actually, if someone had hijacked my account, they probably would have made better edits.
3. It wasn't a matter of asking or demanding a block -- it was the fact that I deserved a block for what I did. And for creating the MN-33 article in the first place (and with a provocative and wrong title, also done in a spirit of frustration).
4. Speaking of frustration: If an editor is frustrated, it's their problem -- not the one doing the provocation. If I got frustrated, then it's my fault, not SPUI's. It's a problem I need to solve for myself -- and not with anyone else's help.
5. The test2-n through test5-n messages on my talk page were perhaps not actually correct, but again, they were well-deserved. It also would have served as a reminder to any other admin that I've been warned several times about my bad behavior. It's just too bad that I didn't even get the arguments right to the test5-n template.
6. Even if they're fake messages, I can't remove them from my talk page. It's considered vandalism to remove warnings from my talk page.
7. Also, User:Ravedave rightly pointed out that I've been behaving like a child throughout this whole fiasco.
8. I'm no longer on Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways. As a result, I don't think my participation in the state route naming poll would be relevant. Besides, the assertion "Highways are my area of expertise" pretty much renders my opinions moot.

Regards, --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this unfortunately is spreading worldwide. Thus... --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I noticed that you added the previous sentence to Elkman's part on my talk page where he mentions his Pink fuzzy bunnies edit. What is spreading worldwide? --Station Attendant 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me, but i don't know what i would do on the debate. I have some suggestions, but i don't know who to bring them to or where to post them. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall i edit or add one of the rules to include Provincial and Territorial route names, and county road names? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 22:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I have already posted a blurb about disambiguation handling reality in the talk page. --master_son^{Lets talk} 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I would like to get this sorted out and would be welcome to help, but I am a tad confused on what the line Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8 means. --Station Attendant 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't receive an invite, but I would be happy to input on this final debate. I appreciate you pulling this together and hopefully this mess will be put to rest! --TinMan 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 31 hours for making disruptive edits across multiple articles in violation of your probation. For my full comments on the issue, see the relevant section on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Ral315 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you have any questions on the block, please post them here or e-mail me. Ral315 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If for some reason this page is on your watchlist... basically I changed the boldface text to the title of the article, and adjusted a few links so that most of them were not redirects (since most of the pages are at "California State Route"). --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that; however, you made other changes that reflect your own preference, including this, where you piped a link for no apparent reason. Until the poll is over, I would advise to leave things as-is; redirects don't hurt at all. Ral315 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the West Virginia State Highways, to which my work summary can be seen in the talk page. Hope your break isn't too long :( Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. I've been so busy dealing with all of this ArbCom and naming crud that I haven't been doing much article editing. :( But hopefully it will be over soon. --Rschen7754 (talk – contribs) 03:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what happened with the tags on the talk pages. Some pages have them, and some don't. Some of the pages were caught up in the mass move, and some weren't. Oh, well. Sam8 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm trying to stay out of the whole debate and stuff now because 1. it's gotten too political and 2. i don't think anything is going to work at this point (although I like to contribute little bits of evidence/information/opinions every so often in the disucssions). With that, I'd like to ask you to keep a couple things in mind:

If possible, please try to not stick to the 'old' conventions as the 'correct' convention. I'm saying this because it was my fault that the two focal points of the current debate are raging on right now. I more or less created both the naming conventions for CA and WA -- with this edit, I basically set the naming convention for WA by deciding that all the red links on that page would go to WA SR X (although two or three other articles already existed when i created that list, I think i also moved a few to match the WA S.R. X convention). I did that mistakenly believing that the official name was "Washington SR X," when now i stand corrected that it is not.

The same thing goes for CA also -- as I posted in the talk page on the little poll you have going on (which i was not alerted to the presence of and had to find myself), the oft-quoted clause on the project page that " " was also created by me here. I'm sure I moved several pages myself to CA SR X to match the policy i wrote myself too. The context for that change was to argue with Nohat about CA 17's naming, and I just jumped over to the WP page, added on the convention, and then quoted that myself as why CA 17 should be at CA SR 17 and not CA SH 17.

Finally, please keep in mind that the CA SR X convention was made by both SPUI and I back in the day when there were only two or three other CA SR articles; both of us believed that this was the correct naming convention. I'm in favour of "updating," if you will, the naming convetion because I realised what I created before was incorrect.

Thus, I hope you will realise that the "old" way was in no way the "correct" way and view both the proposals and the existing on level terms.

Thank you and I hope your efforts will come to fruitition. I apologise that my work has resulted in this way, but back in those days (before you came), there were very very few highway articles and only very very few people working on them, so those decisions seem to be innocuous and totally up to the few people working on the articles. atanamir 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assist in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Multiple reverts. SPUI is up to his old tricks, by reverting numerous pages and undoing the work of myself and others. Thanks. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't know if I'm allowed to compose a new proposal in that poll of yours (you seem to be doing most of the edits), I'd like to offer you my proposal, if you'd be nice enough to post it up for me:

The article itself will be located at the official name given by the DOT. If the Official name leads to ambiguities, e.g. leaves out the name of the state in question, it will be disambiguated after the article title using parentheical disambiguation. Ther will be redirects to this article at all the common names people would generally call the route in question by. For example:

• State Route 85 (California) – the article itself
  • Redirects:
    • California 85
    • California State Highway 85
    • California Highway 85
    • California Route 85
    • California State Route 85
    • CA 85
    • CA/SR 85
    • etc... depending on what is common in the locale
  • Disamb pages:
    • Highway 85
    • Route 85
    • State Route 85

Although one may bring up the idea that this is against the common names policy, this method will ensure the most proper naming scheme. Weathered readers of wikipedia naturally realise that parenthesis are simply disambiguation elements if they occur at the end of an article title; people know that the title of the magazine is called "Time," not Time (magazine), where the actual article is located. The Apollo Program, as it is commonly called, is located at Project Apollo -- its official name too. An unexpected advantage to this naming scheme is that people are not misguided in that they will know what the official name is. Although everyone calls it USPS, few people believe this is the official name; everyone knows it's the United States Postal Service (which happens to be where the article is located). By knowing both common and official names, readers will increase knowlege of the subject at hand, and will also aid in their research on other sites (by giving them a greater vocabulary of which to structure their search queries). Furthermore, the concept of a common name is also very locale-based, and while the people in the state may call it Highway 85 or (less common) California State Highway 85, a reader from another state (such as Florida), would probably try to search for the highway under what he/she knows the local state highways as -- such as California State Road 85. If all the articles are at their proper DOT-given names, it will help to further educate the reader.

• Pros
  • Resolves multiple common names by offering one definitive name
  • Educates reader about official name; greater search vocabulary when researching elsewhere
  • A structured and consistent system that can be applied to all states
  • Easier cross-locale searching
• Cons
  • Arguably doesn't follow the Common Names guideline.
  • A lot of work to create the common names redirects and disambiguation pages
  • The naming scheme that more or less started this whole schpeal

• Provincial Highways of Ontario
  • Highway 406 (Ontario)
    • Ontario Provincial Highway 406
• AOL Instant Messenger
  • AIM -> common name
  • AOL IM
  • etc.

If a fictional state, Zoogot, has DOT-assigned state highways called Zoogot Motorway X, articles will be like:

• Zoogot Motorway 10 -- article
  • Zoogot 10 -- a common name as 10 is called in the municipality of Rootom in Zoogot.
  • M-10 -- there is another motorway called M-10 in the other state of Gaazok, so this will be a disambiguation page.
  • Zoogot M-10 -- a common name as it is called in the city of P'Xalz in Zoogot.

Another state, Wazlak, has routes officially designated as Roadway X:

• Roadway 10 (Wazlak) -- article
  • Wazlak Roadway 10 -- common name because people call it this in the citiy of Z'Xknmir.
  • Wazlak 10 -- another common name
  • etc.

Anyways, those are the basic tenets to my proposal. You can look it over and give suggestions if you want. atanamir 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said in the proposal, many people may call it california state route 1, but at the same time, many poeple call it many other things too -- if you lived in Florida and lived your whole life calling the local state highways as Florida State Road 50, you'd probably call theo nes in california 'state roads' as well. There's just too mnay variables when you come to common names. People visiting CA from england would probably call them Motorway X. Because of this variety from person-to-person, I think it'd be better to have it at the common name. Thus, when epople read about it, they don't get misguided that the official name is "California State Route 50" when it's just simply "state route 50" -- the one in the US State of California. That's the reason why I put stuff like USPS and Apollo Programme – if the articles on wikipedia were actually at USPS for the US Postal Service and Apollo Program -- there will be the users who don't know anything about the subject, come to wikipedia to read about it, and walk away believing that the Apollo Program is really called the Apollo Program by NASA when it's really called Project Apollo; same thing with USPS vs. United States Postal Service. (I know the USPS thing is a stretch because of natural human deduction, but i was using it to illustrate the example.) For a better one that is relevant to me, the other day I thought it was called the Book of Revelations when I was discussing it with my friend. I came to wikipedia to check really quick, and just glancing at the article title i saaw it was the book of Revelaion (not plural). If it was at Book of Revelations (a LOT of people call it that), I would probably keep on thinking it's called the book of revelations. Again, this is just my opinion on the method that an encylopedia should operate. atanamir 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• PS -- do you have any suggestions for the proposal before I post it? Changes/improvements? If you don't I'll forward my proposal to SPUI and see what he has to say about it too. I'm trying to get input from both sides. I'll keep thinking about the disambiguation method and try to find an in-between for both sides. atanamir 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping it'd be a starting point where you would edit some of it and back and forth; but whatever. I won't post this proposal, then. I guess there's numerous examples of both ways all over wikipedia right now. atanamir 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so, since there were so many discussions going on everywhere, in a nutshell, what's going on with the road NC's? We're having the talk over at Virginia Highways project on the talk page, and I'm hesitant to do anything until I see the consensus from the vote if we have to wait, or if I should argue this out right now or later. This whole thing's a total SNAFU, isn't it? Anyway, my blood pressure's up through the roof due to this, it's time for some relaxation. Hope your "vacation" is going well. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve proposed some changes to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio State Highways – please see the discussion on the talk page. I realize you're on a break right now, and you may not have time to even participate upon your return, but I didn't want to leave you out. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Regards, Homefryes 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Heya, I was under the impression, per the discussion, that Michigan (and Kansas) would be special considerations for format. I'd like your input on this since, while I support Principle I, I think the way it is applied to Michigan routes (potentially Kansas) is insufficient. Maybe I'm just SOL on this one. Stratosphere (T/C) 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)