User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 32

Archive 25Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Transportfan/Transportfan70 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Transportfan dual account

(Discussion moved from Talk:Ontario Highway 401 page)

I did create an account in 2008 but didn't think I used the name "Transportfan" as my name. I also edited without signing in for years, but I wanted to upload files so I basically forgot about the old one and created a new account and thought it would overwritten. Can I delete the old one myself? Transportfan70 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

For legal reasons, we cannot delete accounts or have accounts deleted. --Rschen7754 01:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

A summary of another Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. The summary mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice anything wrong, but talk page stalkers are free to chime in   --Rschen7754 18:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Joseph's request

Dear Rschen7754:

Please do not block my editing ever again!

Sincerely, Joseph Anthony Steiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.175.70 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Too bad, I just did. --Rschen7754 01:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

User-rights

At this moment, I would like the File Mover and Rollbacker, on the condition that it's needed for WP:TW's functionality. --wL<speak·check> 04:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done Sorry to see that you're resigning as an admin, though I understand your rationale completely. --Rschen7754 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination Notification

Hi Rschen7754/Archive 32

You were previously nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!

Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

Mohanlal filmography

Hai, I have put this for FLC. Can you spare some time to take a look at it.--Inside the Valley (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I generally don't review non road-related articles due to my limited availability. --Rschen7754 01:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
That's no problem. Thanks for your reply anyway.--Inside the Valley (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

SR 1 Issue

It seems that you revised my edit on the State route 1, shown here.

State Route 1
 
Map of California with SR 1 highlighted in red
Route information
Maintained by Caltrans
Length655.845 mi[1] (1,055.480 km)
(broken into 5 pieces by U.S. Route 101)
Existed1934–present
Tourist
routes
  Route One, Big Sur Coast Highway and Route One, San Luis Obispo North Coast Byway
Restrictions
Special restrictions'[2]
Major junctions
South end  I-5 in Dana Point
Major intersections
North end  US 101 near Leggett
Location
CountryUnited States
StateCalifornia
Highway system
  I-980  SR 2
State Route 1
 
Map of California with SR 1 highlighted in red
Route information
Maintained by Caltrans
Length655.845 mi[1] (1,055.480 km)
(broken into 5 pieces by U.S. Route 101)
Existed1934–present
Tourist
routes
  Route One, Big Sur Coast Highway and Route One, San Luis Obispo North Coast Byway
Restrictions
Special restrictions'[3]
Major junctions
South end  I-5 in Dana Point
Major intersections
North end  US 101 near Leggett
Location
CountryUnited States
StateCalifornia
Highway system
  I-980  SR 2

I appreciate your edit and my recognition of only having 10 intersections. However, the extra routes I put are just as significant, if not, more than the previous intersections. For example, SR 152 provides access to Gilroy and is a major route to I-5, and it wasn't on the list, compared to SR 17, which is a mere 25 miles and it only connects Santa Cruz and San Jose, which is on the list. There were also major Interstates that wasn't selected in the major intersections. If you put a spur route of I-80, why not spur routes of I-5 and I-10?

Or, we could do this statistic-wise. We use the 2014 traffic report of CalTrans. You can read more here:

I gathered data about all of the routes' monthly-average traffic put on my previous edit, along with every defined route SR 1 intersects shown below (for our purposes):

Route Avr. Amount of Traffic/Month
Route 133 38600
Route 55 49350
Route 39 38100
Route 22 34000
Route 710 39000
Route 103 30000
Route 110 55000
Route 213 61000
Route 107 42500
Route 105 110000
Route 90 65000
Route 187 41500
Route 10 63000
Route 23 11700
Route 34 33500
Route 232 30500
Route 246 11600
Route 135 17000
Route 166 5800
Route 41 19600
Route 46 8600
Route 68 51000
Route 218 71000
Route 156 17700
Route 183 31000
Route 129 40000
Route 152 53000
Route 17 61000
Route 9 47000
Route 84 6000
Route 92 27500
Route 35 64000
Route 280 85500
Route 116 2750
Route 128 3200
Route 20 21000
Route 211 680
Route 271 630

The top-10 routes who had the most traffic were:

  • Route 105, 110000
  • Route 280, 85500
  • Route 218, 71000
  • Route 90, 65000
  • Route 35, 64000
  • Route 10, 63000
  • Route 213, 61000
  • Route 17, 61000
  • Route 110, 55000
  • Route 152, 53000

Route 280, 10, and 17 were in the revised list and Route 105, 280, 10, 17, 110, and 152 were the old list. The other routes are either minor routes which are probably full of traffic through its entire route. Route 218 is just a mile long, a connector from SR 1 to SR 68, but it's heavy in traffic because it's a surface street and its congested of traffic lights. So in order to arrange the major intersections of SR 1, we need to find out the length of each of these routes, which will be in part 2 of this talk (I troll constantly). kevon kevono (Talk) 11:24, 17 April 2016 (PT)

Routes with the most traffic is not the sole criteria that is used to determine what goes in an infobox. Usually we consider what routes are truly major, and we also try to pick junctions spread out along the route (for example, we wouldn't pick 7 routes of the 10 to be in the Bay Area, we would try and choose ones representative of the entire route).
However, something to keep in mind: while I appreciate your enthusiasm, this is just the infobox, a small part of the article. We want to beware of spending too much time getting the infobox perfect, while the rest of the article remains a mess (it is rated as C-class under our assessment scheme, which is embarrassing for the most viewed California road article (CA 78 is higher in March since it was on the Main Page for a day that month). --Rschen7754 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't really done with my research and my debate/rant yet. However, you're right. The infobox is a small part of the article. I could edit the infobox as it isn't very accurate but the rest of the article is fine. I upgraded the article to B class a few weeks ago but it got turned down. I think the article should be a B class. I've seen C classes before and they're not more than a few lines long. kevon kevono (Talk) 14:13, 18 April 2016 (PT)

I could continue my research if you want.

On the surface, an article like SR 1 looks "fine", but it's not. Note the mass of unsourced information in the history, as well as the information that isn't there. For example, look at California State Route 78 - it has a lot more detail in the history section. That's the sort of quality that is expected for a history section. In truth, an article of any length can be a C-class article if it is still a mess. --Rschen7754 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference trucklist was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Special Route Restrictions". California Department of Transportation. Retrieved July 25, 2014.
  3. ^ "Special Route Restrictions". California Department of Transportation. Retrieved July 25, 2014.

Your GA nomination of California State Route 11

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article California State Route 11 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of California State Route 11

The article California State Route 11 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:California State Route 11 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Penn Turnpike

Hello,

I recently noticed a problem with the map for the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The link verifying alignments has been dysfunctional for a while now, hence the map errors I found. In the mid section of SR 43 intersecting I-70 (Mon–Fayette Expressway), the southern end of the turnpike has been extended from Hiller to Uniontown. I would make the corrections myself, but I don't have the experience. Another recommendation I have, since this is the only Penn interstate map we have, is to add omitted shields for other interstates (86, 180, 176) etc

Cheers, Cards84664 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dough4872: since you were the one working on this. --Rschen7754 00:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I will work on having someone update the map to show the completed middle section of PA 43. The link is to a .zip file for PennDOTs GIS data, so you would need GIS software to use that link. As for the shields, they are only shown for longer routes due to space constraints. Dough4872 00:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

How I Write good articles essay

For the CA roads essay you sent me about a week ago, you should add what it takes to get an article to C-class. Most editors (myself included) know how, but just for newcomers or me until like 2 weeks ago, don't.

I appreciate that -DJ Khaled

Kevon kevono (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 19:39 (PT)

It is described on the linked page, WP:USRD/A. I mean, I could add it, but then by the same reasoning I would have to add a lot of other stuff too. (Also, there are no California road articles that are Stub-Class, and Start->C is just a matter of adding some resemblance of a Route description or History, even if it is bad...) --Rschen7754 04:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Should you add what'll make a good junction list for the California road article?
@Kevon kevono: It is already included here: User:Rschen7754/How_I_write_good_road_articles#RJL --Rschen7754 00:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Signpost article on en-N stewards

Hey Rschen7754,

We're at an all-time low of en-N stewards right now, and not doing so well in terms of overall numbers either. I was thinking of writing a Signpost article (special report or op ed? not sure which would be best) about the last and next elections, to try and get some more enwiki regulars who are active and interesting in cross-wiki work to apply. Would you be interested in helping to write that? I would like you to return as well, though I understand why you wouldn't want to.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be interested. The main concern I would have though, would be that people have to have the cross-wiki experience first though, before they apply - unfortunately, some very well qualified en-only candidates have recently failed at SE because they did not have much obvious crosswiki experience. I've written a few essays (m:User:Rschen7754/SE2015, User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!) that may have some usable material/ideas too.
As far as running again, I wouldn't rule it out completely, but the intensity/time commitment of being in such a high profile position just wasn't/still isn't compatible with my real-life situation. Yes, there were stewards who barely did anything and were reconfirmed, but that's just not me. I suspect the drama wouldn't be as bad as it was during my term, but the additional stress isn't really what I need at this time. I'm more than happy though to sit on the sidelines and pop in on Meta occasionally. I appreciate your thinking of me though. --Rschen7754 21:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of running the article about 5-6 months before the election, actually, to see if we can "nudge" people who are already inclined to maybe pick up a bit of xwiki activity before applying. You're right, that is the biggest stumbling block. There are also a lot of enwiki admins+ who are active across multiple projects, but maybe not in global areas - this could target them as well. I'll start a draft in my userspace sometime in the next couple of days and link it to you when I have.
As to your reasoning for potentially not re-applying, I completely understand. As is demonstrated at every confirmation, stewards don't need to be meaningfully active in the role to be kept around. But you and I both have a different philosophy on that matter, and if I were in the position of not having time to commit to it I'd step down too. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
And made at User:Ajraddatz/Future enwiki stewards. Not sure if the signpost is actually the best place for it though, maybe just kept as a userpage essay? Or both I suppose... Ajraddatz (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we'll have to see how it turns out. I was thinking about this, and we do seem to be at a low as to the number of global sysops, and there are none from enwiki. --Rschen7754 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
That might be a good place to start actually. Less about stewards, more about "this is global work and we need your help" sort of thing. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)