User talk:Rschen7754

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #79

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. If you are here to complain about my speedy deletions, please know that I rarely will undelete something that I have speedy deleted. It will simply be a waste of your time (unless it was an obvious and blatant mistake, in which case another admin will have fixed it). Notice: starting in 2007 I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent.

RE: Nonstandard Section

I agree with you Rschen7754. I noticed another user placing a seperate section for the routes. I was just continuing his work. Making a simple sentence would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cello06 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Shields

Why are you restoring the shields? Those routes are not signed. Only the route names should remain. --Mgillfr (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the shields for the San Diego County ones myself (the routes are signed), so the shields should be displayed there. Otherwise, I do see the point - but you would need to take it up at WT:ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean county shields signed like this (i.e. SR 78 at El Camino Real) [1]? I thought that on freeway segments, we only include what is displayed on BGS like this [2]. --Mgillfr (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ELG says "guide signs" not BGS. Since these routes are signed, the shields should stay.

Routes should always be included in the exit text (destination) column, whereas other stuff not on the BGS should not go in the destination column. That being said, the ELG page could probably use a clarification on this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there's tons of gray area here. What I _try_ to do is if the route is signed, use the shield, even if it's not signed on the BGS. If the route is unsigned list it in parands next to the text. However, there's plenty of gray area as to what is/is not signed. I've seen several routes that are signed only at the end, but not any junctions, etc. Also I've seen routes that were unsigned, but after maintenance, suddenly shields appear, and vice-versa. I've also seen routes that are signed in one direction, but not the other. IMO it's not worth a guideline or edit warring. IMO if you're working on an exit list for a route, make your best effort. If you see an exit list that is incorrect, if it's a minor error (such as shield present on an unsigned route) and only one or two of them, I'd let it be. Dave (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I-5 (CA) rewrite

Okay, I'm fine with your re-write, as I see you might want to just refine the prose. However, I don't know why would you like to remove the references I added. Those are reliable sources as they are maps taken from the respective websites. Explain why those refs should not be added. --Mgillfr (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't need them. You can just cite a map. Those references are superfluous and not necessary. GAN, ACR, and FAC will not accept articles like that.

For examples of what the articles are supposed to look like, see California State Route 78 and Interstate 70 in Utah. Most of the California articles use the wrong formatting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For SR 78 (CA) why do names belong in RD? They summarize the route as a whole, and many CASH articles put the names in the lead. --Mgillfr (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it goes in the route description. The names don't summarize the history - thus they may summarize the route as a whole, but for it to go in the lead, it has to summarize the article as a whole. Many CASH articles are deviant from USRD standards and have to be corrected - thanks to many deviant editors and my lack of time to clean up after these deviant editors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So how does this still belong to the lead and summarize the article as a whole? I only see it summarize the route only:

“ This route is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System and is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System. ”

--Mgillfr (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For that, it may be good to consult WT:USRD - I don't feel comfortable with that in the lead because of the citations (since you're not really supposed to have citations in the lead). But it doesn't exactly seem to mesh with the Route description either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That probably should go in the description, maybe as part of a first paragraph describing the route as a whole. --NE2 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And there we go :P The legislative names should probably go there too. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If at all...does anyone really care that a 5-mile section is named the State Trooper Nathan Edgars II Memorial Highway? --NE2 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it depends. If New England Route 2 is about 10 miles long, then maybe the name on a 5-mile segment is notable. But in this case, that name obviously doesn't even exist - because if the name really was Nathan Edgars II "Memorial" Highway, you wouldn't be here anymore. Mgillfr (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What should matter is whether anyone uses the name. For an example of what I'm talking about, see the end of California State Route 99#Local changes. --NE2 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

California SR 65 Talk page

I saw in this diff's edit summary you stated you removed the discussion because it was "not related to the article". Not that it matters a whole lot, but IMHO it was related. Sunrise Blvd in Sacramento and Citrus Heights was a planned portion of SR 65, but it was never fulfilled. The second half of my post on that page was about the historic routing of SR 65 through Roseville. I don't see how those posts could be considered "unrelated" to the topic of the article. Killiondude (talk)

It's not to the topic of the article; it's to the article itself. Talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I could see how one might get the impression it wasn't about the article itself, but my post about the freeway going through Roseville (the old routing) was my attempt to ask if anybody could add that to the article. I myself (at the time) was looking for sources that showed it (so I could add it to the article since I don't know the whole routing) and could not find any. I was hoping that somebody who visited to the page (and subsequently the talk page) would be able to add that. Killiondude (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted; my apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, no harm done. Thanks for being understanding. I appreciate that. Killiondude (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

CASH articles without junction lists

Do you know any California road articles that do not yet have junction lists? --Mgillfr (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I know there are quite a few - try above 100. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Highway

Rschen, I _FINALLY_ finished the re-write of Sierra Highway, a stepping stone to get both U.S. Route 395 and California State Route 14 up to GA. Would you mind giving this a quick overview to see if I missed anything. As this took about 50 times longer than I expected, i'd like to get a DYK out of it =-). Also, I think I might nominate this for GA also, I would argue this should not have a major intersections table, as this is more talking about a historical highway whose modern definition isn't 100% clear. do you concur? (if it does need a major intersectins table, I'll drop work and not nominate it for GA, i've improved it enough to meet my needs). Dave (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello, Rschen7754. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --KP Botany (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Hello - Im new to Wikipedia and wanted to know how my deleted article (blatent advertising) is any different that any of the similar articles found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racing_schools I look forward to a reply - JKF0021 re: FAASST Performance Driving School Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by FPDS21 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM. --Rschen7754 (T

OK if that is the case, then please delete the other WP:SPAM here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racing_schools You did not answer my question which was "how is our article any different than these"?? If you delete one, you must delete all of them. Correct? FPDS21 (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)jkf0021

Feel free to AFD them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: WikiCup question

This is close to what we used. Garden. 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the USRD-CRWP Cup

Hello, Rschen7754, and welcome to the USRD-CRWP Cup. This is just a reminder that the contest will start at 00:00 UTC on Saturday (about 4 PM Pacific and about 7 PM Eastern on Friday). Nominations must be made after that time to count for the contest.

Currently, there is only one pool for contestants. Please feel free to invite any Wikipedia user to join. We need a few more users to get another pool.

It is unknown when the first round will end; however, it will last at least 3 weeks.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

USRD cup

Sure,  Done –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cup

You should have asked me during my more active days! :) Sorry though, I just don't have the time to involve myself back to Wikipedia, at least for the time being. It definitely is a good idea, and you've got a good amount of editors already signed up. Good luck with the Cup! Hope it brings more activity to our project. CL — 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem... there's many times when real life just gets too busy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP Cup

Thanks for the note. Will see what I can pop off about roads and highways. Probably no pictures though its like minus 20 here, unless we get a chinook. Kind regards SriMesh | talk 04:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Cup!

Maybe, but probably not. The edits I might make will require significant map-based research for maps from 1917. At least they exist now! —Rob (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat... lame California :P Though I cannot win the competition as judge... --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another question about the Cup. You're watching Commons to see when we upload shields, correct? I haven't uploaded any yet, but I have a bunch that I will be uploading. --Fredddie™ 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoot. I probably should be. I'll start doing that in the next update. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude, One more: assisted edits count (awb, huggle) and anti-vandal activity count, right? It's definitely not cheating. Right?Synchronism (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they are minor edits (worth only 0.01 per edit). --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the scoring explanation, could you add the abbreviations from the standings next to what they stand for? I find myself having to scroll up to see what all of them mean. --Fredddie™ 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to do that next time I update. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, just wondering - how often will you be updating the Cup statistics on the charts? Jamie^☆S93 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to update once around 4 PM Pacific every day. That being said, I probably will miss quite a few days during the contest. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Highways commons media

1. File:25StETrafficLights.jpg just because there were only two images in the Canadian Traffic signal category.
2. File:UBridge.jpg ‎ on route of Highway 5
3. File:25StEUniversityBridge.jpg ‎ on route of Highway 5
4. File:SkHwy5TurnsNorth.jpg ‎ on route of Highway 5
5. File:PedestrianWalkDontWalk.jpg ‎ just a clear shot of pedestrian signage
6. File:SkHwy5Ends.jpg ‎actual road sign for Saskatchewan Highway 5 article and used thus
7. File:Fairbanks-MorseWarehouse.jpg on route of Saskatchewan Highway 5 as a heritage site
8. File:SkHwy5Begins.jpg actual road sign for Saskatchewan Highway 5 article and used thus

That is all. I have to still smoosh the Saskatchewan Highway 5 article to see which old and which new photos along the route will go into the actual text. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll work that into the next score update. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Highway coordinates

Thanks for bringing my attention to the highway edits. I'll roll back those edits, if you like, which I believe to be all those containing the words "route", "highway" or "interstate", other than Route Twisk: this will also roll back all such edits to similarly-named road articles in Canada. You'll need to unblock the bot for me to do that. If you know any other name patterns for articles that should be rolled back, please let me know. -- The Anome (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that I got them all. I may have missed one or two here or there. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have put you to all that trouble. I'm very happy to fix the bot's errors, including fixing them programattically in bulk. If you see any similar problems in future, please don't hesitate to ask, and I'll fix them myself. -- The Anome (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I think the edits to the Chinese "X Road" articles might be OK, since they generally refer to very short roads. Would you mind if I filtered these by latitude/longitude, and put them back? -- The Anome (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on geotagging roads - I think the options were south or west terminus or midpoint. The problem with the road edits was that the center of the Google Map citation was being tagged - which probably was not the south or west terminus or midpoint. I would wait until the resolution of that discussion first before tagging any roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:USRD cup inquiry

I am uploading images I have taken of roads months ago, way before this competition began. I usually like to take a LOT of pictures of the roads I travel on. As for the competition, you could probably give points for the images I have placed onto Wikipedia articles as well as a select few that could possibly be used in other articles. Dough4872 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but which ones are these? It's already taking me about 40 minutes a day to score these and I can't go through all those images and try to figure it out. Could you give me a list? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of images you can score:

• File:DE 92 WB past DE 261.JPG used in Delaware Route 92 article
• File:US 202 SB at Cleveland Avenue Wilmington.JPG used in U.S. Route 202 in Delaware article
• File:DE 141 SB at William Penn High School.JPG used in Delaware Route 141 article
• File:DE 141 SB approaching S. James Street-Old Airport Road.JPG used in Delaware Route 141 article
• File:DE 141 SB approaching Alapocas Drive.JPG used in Delaware Route 141 article
• File:DE 9 NB-DE 273 EB at 6th Street.JPG shows end sign at eastern terminus of Delaware Route 273
• File:DE 9 NB at I-295 NB-US 40 EB exit.JPG shows an important interchange on Delaware Route 9
• File:DE 9 NB approaching Moore Avenue.JPG shows a picture of Delaware Route 9 with reasurance shield
• File:DE 141 SB between DE 34 and DE 2.JPG shows construction on Delaware Route 141 (could be used in history section)
• File:DE 141 SB DE 2 EB-Centerville Road ramp 2.JPG shows a ramp to Delaware Route 2 (one of only two images in that article's Commons category)
• File:DE 100-DE 141 SB at Old Barley Mill Road.JPG shows an image of Delaware Route 100 and Delaware Route 141 (could be used in Delaware Route 100 article)
• File:Delaware Route 141 SB at DE 9-DE 273.JPG shows end sign at southern terminus of Delaware Route 141
• File:US 202-DE 141 SB at US 13 NB-US 40 EB exit.JPG shows southern terminus of U.S. Route 202 Dough4872 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: USRDCRWPCup

Please let me know:

1) if it is too late to jump in to the competition, and

2) if maps such as found at Massachusetts Route 88 are definitely MTF compliant. I am confident this and the dozens of others I have done in this Commons category are OK, I would simply like confirmation before continuing to contribute using this style.

Thanks -- Sswonk (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add you. I would take the MTF questions to WT:USRD/MTF as I don't really follow map standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CA 46 GA review

Hey, I've finished reviewing California State Route 46. Let me know on the review page if you've made changes to the article or if you need clarification. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CA 78 FAC

Per our discussion in IRC, you have my permission to renominate it on the FAC, even though renominating so soon is something we normally discourage. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)