User talk:Rschen7754: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #225

User:Rschen7754/Wikistatus

This is Rschen7754's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please could you just delete all that conversation I had on here last night. I would be ever so gratfull. I am a bit embarrased by it all. That's all I wanted to do. 78.145.75.115 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of your concerns on the Washington State Route 409 GAN have been met. ~~ ComputerGuy 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, I really sorry for that... Thanks for taking care of it Devessh S N Bhatta (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After new evidence and analysis from cross-wiki checkusers, it is now most likely to say that FWG is not User:I-210 or any one of the sockpuppets at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of I-210. You may wish to reconsider your block if you were blocking FWG based on edits of the formerly suspected sockpuppets. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not - Freewayguy was blocked for one reason, and I-210 was blocked for another. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the two; but if I am certain that the sock is either one of the two, then I block. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, thank you for your continued help in this situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, Rschen7754, as you're the admin on the scene. I am just trying to clarify the nature of the relationship, or lack thereof, between the parties. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't I-210 75.47? --NE2 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have same behaviour. I noticed them both on Commons, first I thought a possible good/bad sockpuppeting. It turned up that Freewareguy and I-210 weren't the same, however that's the "technical evidence" I believe. Might be more of a history then we know. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have gone into a great length to calculate the worthiness of each candidate. I am impressed. Keep up the good work! -- Cat ^chi? 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think I have no idea how to do it, please show me. The technical aspect of review may be be clear to me but the article does meet all 6 criteria, in my opinion. Thank you for your help. Chergles (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important that you learn how to review articles properly - the technical aspect is very important - you made a mess of the system. If you can't do the technical aspect properly, then please don't review GAs. Use {{GAList2}} to organize your review. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NE2 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]