Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Thanks

Thank you for taking decisive action. RashersTierney (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 08:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

US-62 and OK-74

I haven't forgot, I just have a limited amount of time on the wiki and I'm trying to spend it on stuff for the Cup. I'll get around to it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

California State Route 52 et al

Rschen, I've noticed you've changed wording about the National Highway System on several articles, including featured article California State Route 52. Previously, "a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility". Your change: "a network of highways that are essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility". This characterization is not supported by the included citation and per previous discussions, IMO this is original research. I don't want this wording to be enforced at articles I edit. I'd appreciate your reply. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep bothering us on this? Would you rather that I plagiarized instead, since that was what that was doing before I changed it? --Rschen7754 20:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, who is "us" - the "owners" of the U.S. Roads Project? Use of the word "important" is hardly plagiarizing, and I repeat, the use of "essential", with its distinct meaning, is likely original research. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not changing it. --Rschen7754 20:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The sockpuppet thing that briefly popped up was NOT from me. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, that's a troll from somewhere else. --Rschen7754 20:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Yip

In my contribution history you'll find Jonathan Yip had returned. This time he's doing several "good" edits, sneaking in a bad one. HkCaGu (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

These probably should be referred to SPI, so that we can document his abuse and possibly do any CUs if necessary. --Rschen7754 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Good call

Glad you spotted that nasty IP and blocked him/her. I was going to contact an admin to check it out, as I had been tracking the IPs vandalism on a few pages and reverting. Irondome (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rschen7754 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2013

Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Nimbipisa

No wonder he was so pleased. I nailed him as a puppet but connected him to the wrong master. Lately, it feels like the world is full of nothing but socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That one is particularly disturbing... we've blocked almost 100 socks of his and he's still going. :( --Rschen7754 00:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Ajarcelli another Clopssite account?

Hi, I noticed some strange edits at Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show. The first user, Clopssite was blocked by you after two edits for multiple account abuse. Saw a similar test edit on the same page from user Ajarcelli and I thought I'd give you a heads-up in case it's the same person/bot. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 03:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

See here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mehrah13 . Blatant block evasion by a user you blocked. I am unfamiliar with the circumstances of the block however. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Connecting IPs to accounts

Hi,
I would like to point you towards this AUSC announcement from two years ago: WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts.
I for one do no longer go out of my way to avoid making an implicit connection public if a problem user deliberately edits anonymously. When he edits anonymously and continues the disruptive behavior of a named account, he implicitly accepted that the connection is seen publicly.
Standards vary of course, but I don't think you should decline a CU request merely because all supposed socks are IPs.
Cheers, Amalthea 21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but overall I have rarely seen the vast majority of SPI CUs ever do such a check at SPI, and I will not be endorsing such a check/will continue to decline such a check if I know that the CUs that frequent SPI the most will not perform such a check. I am aware that the privacy policy allows for the connection to be made in extreme cases of abuse, but only when there is no other option. In the overwhelming majority of such cases, we can use behavior to determine if the two are the same; we don't need a CU to check and see if they are so. Of course, you are welcome to run a CU on any of these requests, but I am very reluctant to "endorse" such a check as I do not want to be connected with a check that may arguably violate the privacy policy and/or be subsequently declined by 75%+ of CUs. --Rschen7754 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, just to be sure we're on the same page: an apology is absolutely unnecessary! I see that my words have been received as personal criticism, but that was not at all my intent! I have to apologize for that. I also hope my feedback hasn't in any way made you reluctant to working on SPI cases -- if so I would have done us a great disservice.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well no it's not exactly that; I just feel that we miscommunicated originally and I got a bit too combative when it turns out that I didn't fully understand what you were saying. It's not been a great last few days, either IRL or onwiki (I am also a sysop on Wikidata and with the recent account sharing thing, I got a double dose), and that played into things as well. --Rschen7754 10:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Piped redirects

I understand that linking to resdirects isn't a problem. What you did in California State Route 75, though, is not just link to redirects—they were piped links to redirects, such as [[San Ysidro, California|San Ysidro]], which pipes to San Ysidro, California, which in turn redirects to San Ysidro, San Diego. This is different from the cases in WP:NOTBROKEN, where, for example, the plain link [[Franklin Roosevelt]] redirects to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]].

I'm not going to make an issue of it, but it does seem strange and pointless to me to revert all that work. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It was edits just to make edits, and I generally revert those, especially at a FAC. Also, you didn't check your work and broke a link in the process. --Rschen7754 01:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
They weren't "edits just to make edits"—the vast majority of my edits are generation of content. Way to put a fellow editor's contribution in a negative light. You enjoy your day, too. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
In a similar vein, there were redirects bypassed on Interstate 96 that cause a potential future issue. If the various business loop articles are split back apart from the lists, any redirects bypassed today have to be repaired in the future to point back to the original links. Sometimes, there are reasons why the redirects are used, and it's not truly necessary to bypass them. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A significant number of the changes I made were to redirects of pages that had been renamed, e.g. [[Interstate 5 (California)|Interstate 5]] to [[Interstate 5 in California|Interstate 5]]. Is there any reason for retaining them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Those types of redirects I will only bypass when performing other edits of substance. Otherwise, it's an edit for the sake of making an edit that doesn't actually improve the article; a reader clicking the link will still get to the desired location with or without the change. In the case of [[Interstate 5 (California)|Interstate 5]], that is a great application of the pipe trick when writing the article in the first instance. At a later date, with an edit that makes some other changes of substance, then it would be fine to bypass that redirect, but if that's all the edit does, it clogs editors' watchlists with edits that may or may not need to be double-checked for accuracy. (rschen knows my editing skills and abilities, so he's unlikely to monitor a change I make to an article he has up for review, but if he doesn't know the editor involved, he's probably going to check to make sure the edit didn't blow up the table formatting in the exit list, for example.) Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A reasonable explanation; I'll avoid that kind of editing behaviour in the future. Gotta say, though, that if the goal is to keep watchlists unclogged, reverting such edits doesn't accomplish that. If such edits ared "edits just to make edits", then such reverts could only be called "reverts just to make reverts". Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Share the Cookies

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Rschen7754/Archive 20, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

please check sockpuppet mosamu.

here i request you to check the relations between an not new and child star grown up.please it is important.

istion the ip of child star is 182.188.190.59 taken from its investigation page and my ip is 119.154.4.48.there is absolute no relation between range.the only relation which is visible is relation between location internet service provider and location.and it is because there is only one ISP in Pakistan that is PTCL.i request another clerks to please check my relation again.

please i request you to see once again.Dil e Muslim talk 06:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually do not hold the CheckUser tool, so you will need to wait for one to look at the case. --Rschen7754 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again ...

for the heads-up. I was curious, so I did find the "how, what, and why" here: Wikipedia talk:Unified login/Finalisation — Ched :  ?  22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by Bs5522

Hi, you recently blocked Sb2335 as a sock of Bs5522, per this SPI. They have reappeared at Arora as Bb35bb - this edit is a duck quacking through a megaphone job. Can you do the honours or should I open another SPI? - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 14:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

can you please check that request

can you please check this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.59.198 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY

Nbound (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Rschen7754 07:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Court at 744-756½ S. Marengo Ave.

I'm writing articles on the Pasadena bungalow courts, and I think your pictures of the Court at 744-756½ S. Marengo Ave. (such as this one) may be of the wrong court. They don't match the pictures from the NRHP nomination, and the nomination itself says the court is Art Deco, which the houses pictured aren't. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely possible... it was done on WLM day and I probably got the pictures mixed up. :/ I can look and see if I have some pictures of them though. --Rschen7754 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I recently reported some socks, mistakenly identifying them as socks of Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You then retagged them as socks of Oakey Zass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the accounts I reported. Following further recent activity, I think that these are actually all puppets of indefinitely blocked serial vandal The abominable Wiki troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could you take a look, and if appropriate retag these? RolandR (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to prove this? --Rschen7754 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I was about to post diffs, but NawlinWiki has already made this correction. RolandR (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just want to share something with you

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MezzoMezzo/Archive

That was a request which i made some days ago which is now closed.in this edit i presented some strong behavioural evidences about two users.but this edit went against me and they closed my account just by a possible tag.

well this is a different matter i want to tell you that.in that request i wrote hundreds of time that look at evidences.my evidences are strong.but they didnt even made effort to see above part of page.mr admin regardless the term who i am my request was not wrong.I request you to once see upper part of page just read my evidences calmly.confirm it by opening pages and then decide was my request wrong.They completly neglected that.just think once with nutral point of view.I cant open that case now coz they will again prove me sock and this case will not be seen again.i kindly request you to once see and reopen that case as you can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.66.219 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The way to have an appeal heard is to post on your talk page, not by editing logged out. I have blocked your IP for a week. --Rschen7754 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not requesting unblock.I am requesting to open the Investigation which i basically made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.191.250 (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page (and also for revdeleting it on my user page and talk page)! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Block of 5.12.68.204

5.12.68.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could you give any more detail into why you've blocked them? Seems to me that you've blocked them simply for preferring to edit anonymously. As a SPI volunteer, you should know that you should prove evidence, and this seems like a bad-faith block here. Sceptre (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already posted the link, and regardless, they were trolling and should have been blocked anyway. --Rschen7754 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. 4WhatMakesSense's edits are in completely different topic areas than 5. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You agree that they were trolling though, right? --Rschen7754 19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I doubt it's worth a week-long block. 24 hours at most. Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. They were making frivolous unblock requests, asking for admins to be desysopped (including Black Kite, who had a connection to the account I named above), etc. --Rschen7754 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Establishment cats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You know, it would have been nice (especially since you are an admin) to point me to the consensus for the changes. As in the prior discussion whereby multiple editors perhaps across multiple projects discussed and came to a consensus that for some reason road articles should be exempt from the standard establishment/built type categories. So please do so now. Another thing, your edit summary is simply inaccurate, as no prior categories were deleted for the individual states that I can see. I understand you likely mean removed from those articles, but that is not same as deleting the cats. The xxxx establishments in Oregon have been around for about 6 months for the earliest ones, and it appears to be part of a fairly standardize set, presumably to help keep the US one from being so big. Before I recently worked to basically complete the Oregon set, I reviewed the large scheme and most states had these, some going back centuries. So I'd really like to see the consensus. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I pointed you to the TFD, what more do you need? The problem with adding roads to those categories is that there is no one date that the road was established by, so the addition of the categories violates our original research policy. --Rschen7754 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link (note you did so after your initial post on my page and after you stared the mass-reversions, and at the same time I was posting above - i.e. "what more do I want" was the link to begin with, that's what civil editors do), and though I think these are not the same categories, it's not worth fighting the road cartel. They obviously have their opinions, and they are in my opinion impossible to reason with. Not to mention that was a deletion discussion about the cats, so I question the viability of the argument that because those cats were deleted, articles cannot go into these ones, and I've certainly never seen such a guideline or policy, but please point me to it. Honestly, the categories are not similar enough to constitute a precedent, especially as these cats actually address two of the arguments raised against the "opened in" cats. That being 1) a road would usually only be in one of these per state (i.e. when the road was established, not each time a new section opened) which since the first date is in the infobox there is actually no OR issue (e.g. you may want to talk to your brethren then about removing that parameter from the infobox if you actually think it constitutes OR) and 2) these group them to where you actually would be grouping them into state specific cats so as to negate the argument about who cares about roads world-wide opening the same year. And as to your argument above, actual, usually there is an actual date they were established by. Just like the US was "established" in 1776, yet grew more later with additional territory additions and changed governance a few times, we still keep it in just the one cat, we don't add more each time it added territory or when the Art. of Confed went into effect or when the Constitution was ratified. Or say for companies we don't add them to multiple establishment cats just because they re-organized under a new name or changed from an LLC to an Inc or changed their filing to say Delaware, its the original date that matters. But keep on living the dream. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"it's not worth fighting the road cartel". Way to assume good faith. I'm not going to reply to someone who starts their post like that, especially when your first post was so demanding, so we're done here. --Rschen7754 06:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 2

Hate to say it, but I was looking at this CSD nom, and came to the conclusion that while I don't know if there will ever BE an I-2 (and doubt the road is notable at this point), that page wasn't a hoax. (See [1] It is bureaucratic nonsense, but again, not a G3) Courcelles 04:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The G3 is more or less on the grounds that the application was declined, while the article says that the road will exist and was conditionally approved. I would be happy to undelete the history though, if that is a concern (the article was subsequently created as a redirect). --Rschen7754 04:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If I'm reading page 1 of that PDF right, "SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)" that's not actually correct... but the point is that G3 isn't for "proposed" things; even proposals that get shot down, it is for total hoaxes when the hoax amounts to pure vandalism, and that wasn't the case here. Courcelles 04:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Last time I checked, G3 was hoax or misinformation. Also, I deserve some of the blame for this thing that warrants no blame because I was the one who CSD'd it. I should have just reverted it to the redirect it already was. TCN7JM 04:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've undone the deletion, but will leave the redirect in place - if it gets reverted, then I suppose it will get sent to AFD. --Rschen7754 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That works (this is the first time I've opened the "edit" tab to decline a speedy only to find no page there! (And whatever number the darn thing gets, may it not be nearly as confusing as I-97, which I still miss going south through Baltimore about half the time heading to Annapolis!) Courcelles 04:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

SensualIntracourse (talk · contribs) socks

Hello, Rschen7754! Can we run a quick sleeper check on the latest Bundy socks? I could file a SPI otherwise: and it may need to be done anyway. These types truly make WP suck. Cheers... Doc talk 08:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you will have to file a SPI, as I'm not a CU. :( --Rschen7754 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - it won't be my first! You should be a CU, IMHO. Thanks for your help with this person! Doc talk 09:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the move. ;) Doc talk 09:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions

Latest Tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.
Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf4) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 13, and to the English Wikipedia (with a Wikidata software update) on May 20. It will be updated on all other Wikipedia sites on May 22. [2] [3]
  • A software update will perhaps result in temporary issues with images. Please report any problems you notice. [4]
  • MediaWiki recognizes links in twelve new schemes. Users can now link to SSH, XMPP and Bitcoin directly from wikicode. [5]
  • VisualEditor was added to all content namespaces on mediawiki.org on May 20. [6]
  • A new extension ("TemplateData") was added to all Wikipedia sites on May 20. It will allow a future version of VisualEditor to edit templates. [7]
  • New sites: Greek Wikivoyage and Venetian Wiktionary joined the Wikimedia family last week; the total number of project wikis is now 794. [8] [9]
  • The logo of 18 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a third group of updates. [10]
  • The UploadWizard on Commons now shows links to the old upload form in 55 languages (bug 33513). [11]
Future software changes
  • The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [12]
  • An updated version of Notifications, with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [13]
  • The final version of the "single user login" (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will automatically rename some usernames. [14]
  • A new discussion system for MediaWiki, called "Flow", is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, test the prototype and discuss the interface. [15].
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [16]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe • 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 37

The above review has been inactive for 30 days, and this is the required notification of that effect, per WP:HWY/ACR. Interested editors are encouraged to enter "Keep" or "Remove" declarations, or continue working on the article to ensure that it will remain at A-Class standards. If no attempts are made to work on the article, and a net 3 Remove declarations have not been entered, the article will remain at A-Class. --Rschen7754 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Rschen7754, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject U.S. Roads talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Harsh comment

Tinton5 archived his talk page, so apparently this is done.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest you remove that harsh comment, now. No name calling here. Tinton5 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Not words that I would have used, personally, but your schtick about asking Imzadi1979 if he had ever been to New Jersey was entirely uncalled for. --Rschen7754 20:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive. Tinton5 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You were the one violating WP:TPG, not me. --Rschen7754 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Talkback notice

Why have you left a talkback notice on my page? SpinningSpark 23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because your request for a second opinion has been answered. --Rschen7754 23:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not request a second opinion, I withdrew as reviewer. What I did request is that talkback notices are not placed on my page - in an edit notice, same as on your page, but in larger letters and without the dayglow orange background that hurts my eyes. SpinningSpark 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
When a second opinion is requested, it is still the responsibility of the first reviewer to decide whether or not to pass the article. And I didn't see your editnotice since I used Twinkle. --Rschen7754 23:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As I say, I did not request a second opinion, I declared on the review page that I wished to withdraw as reviewer and then notified this situation on the project talk page in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If you wish, I can explain in detail my reasons for withdrawing but it will not change the fact that the article needs a new reviewer. SpinningSpark 15:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You still retain responsibility for passing or failing the article, however. Reading the instructions you linked above, it is not possible to withdraw as a reviewer. --Rschen7754 18:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So what is If you are in a situation where you absolutely can't continue to review the article, please leave a note on the nomination talk page supposed to mean? Essentially, I have failed the article, but I don't want to be unfair to the nominator. If you really want to insist on this then do it on a public page at the GA project where it will be transparent what's going on. SpinningSpark 22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not true in this case. If you want to fail the article, then go ahead and fail it, but don't string the nominator out. (I've always read that as in the event of extended inactivity, which is not the case here). --Rschen7754 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Failing it just to put it back in the queue for a new reviewer wouldn't be fair to the nom. Either the review could've been stopped and moved to a new subpage or the second opinion could make the decision. To make it easy I did the latter. Wizardman 03:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. --Rschen7754 04:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav

Thanks for [17]. Because all three user pages are redlinks (which I knew while creating the report), and because the page doesn't display "User:User:" links but seemingly correct "User:" links, I wasn't aware that what I saw wasn't what I got (if one of them should have been blue instead of red, it would have been more obvious). Not the most intuitive interface. Fram (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Rschen7754 09:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TheSyndromeOfaDown

TheSyndromeOfaDown is a suspected sockpuppet of a user you have banned (See his talk), and has seemed to from thin air, weighed in on a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#AUshielding_conversions, with some particularly strong opinions. The specific post is a little above the horizontal rule you will find if you scroll down. I though this may be of interest to any currently running investigations. -- Nbound (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He may be a sock of someone, but I highly doubt it's Jonathan Yip. --Rschen7754 21:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Per his request on his unblock request, is it possible to run a Checkuser to see. I would've agreed with Nbound, until I saw this edit. This was exactly the same information JY added before his block and ban. He seems like a JY sock. Though you run these SPI's a lot. Could you request or do Checkuser for this user? Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that edit is troublesome, and the tone sounds plausible, but there are socks that go around faking the behavior of other socks. I don't hold CU so I can't run one unfortunately. --Rschen7754 10:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip.
Message added 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, see his talk page for more info. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!


AutomaticStrikeout  ?  is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Tech news: 2013-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • MediaWiki will stop supporting XHTML 1.0 and HTML versions lower than version 5. HTML5 will now be the default language for pages created by the software. [23] [24]
  • The software will check if all uploaded files are secure and match their type. [25]
  • The Wikimedia Commons Android app will come out of the beta phase on its next release. [26]
  • Account creation by manual log-in will now be recorded in the account creation log (bug 42434). [27]
  • Links to file description pages will again be accessible directly from within videos (bug 43747). [28]
  • The software behind recent changes patrolling was re-written; the change fixes issues related to patrolling new pages, among other things. [29]
  • During a meeting, developers agreed on rules about making big changes to the software. [30]
  • There is now a category to list pages with invalid music code. [31]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenightchicagodied

Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenightchicagodied as this user is back to socking. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maunus/Archive

Apologies for editing the archive... did not have an idea about it. Thanks for pointing it out though. Amit (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Greenday25

What do you think of 71.145.140.37 (talk)? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. --Rschen7754 09:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

ANI comment

No worries on the revert. I got no edit conflict warning, so didn't see Dennis had closed. I suspect the comment reached the intended recipient anyway. Cheers. Begoon talk 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox road question

You recently edited this and seem to deal with these things often, so I figured you might know something.

It looks like including a map causes the country param to be required. There is no documentation indicating that this is the case. In fact, the template page lists country as only being for numbered routes. I noticed this on the previous version of the Sunset Blvd page. The person added the infobox with a map. It shows a glaring Script Error text. Since Sunset Blvd isn't a numbered route, there should be no need for a country and state. Including these params adds the section on highways in California, which Sunset Blvd obviously is not.

The backing module specifically mentions that country is required for maps. It seems like a strange requirement. Is this supposed to be the case? If it is, that should probably be mentioned on the template page. lukini (talk | contribs) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Happy5214 should be on later tonight and can take a look at it then. --Rschen7754 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done it has been fixed. --Rschen7754 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

question

Sorry about joining the sockpuppet investigations channel with the nick sockpuppet, as given I'm new to Wikipedia IRC, I didn't realize harmless self humor such as that would constitute a ban from the channel. Are all Wikipedia IRC channels like that in the way of a serious nature?--1966batfan (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As you're an established user I'll go ahead and unban - we regularly have sockers come into the channel and troll around, so that nick was immediately suspect. --Rschen7754 03:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:I-79 aux

Template:I-79 aux has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JJ98 (Talk) 06:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Switchback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


Tech news: 2013-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf5) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 29. It will be enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 3, and on all other Wikipedias on June 5. [32]
  • The Tamil Wikipedia shared a Lua module they created to automate their Main Page. [33]
  • There is now a test wiki to test new features in right-to-left languages. [34]
  • The Thanks feature was added to the English Wikipedia; users can now thank others for individual edits. [35]
  • The new interface for account creation and log-in is now the default on 30 wikis, including the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and Wikidata. The feature will be added to all wikis after June 5. Users can return to the old look by adding ?useNew=0 to the web address. [36]
  • Videos are now played in pop-up windows if their size on the page is smaller than 200 pixels (800 pixels on the English Wikipedia). [37]
  • Opening your talk page now marks notifications as read, for wikis using the Notifications feature. (bug 47912) [38].
  • All autoconfirmed users can now reset transcoding of video files; previously only administrators could do this. [39]
  • The Nearby feature allows people who use mobile devices to see Wikipedia articles about objects and places around them. [40]
Future software changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Status

All OK. --Rschen7754 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

FOR MY REQUESTES

I have already stop using the account chihonglee and I have already stoped requesting permissions on other wikis, only on wikiversity. Also, every time I request for the permission, you also opposite for the same reason, so do you mean that I will not get any permission for ever?--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response on beta.wikiversity. --Rschen7754 07:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject California tagging

I believe you are incorrect; i have cited policy for WikiProject tagging in my edit summaries. if you revert my edits, then to my understanding of policy, you are being disruptive. Please read the relevant policy, which i have linked to here. Note this is a highlighted policy point (which i did not contribute to). I understand how you feel about the Cal roads project (which is obviously an incredibly well organized project, with great results), but its a project, which is a social construct, and i am stating, as an active member of WikiProject California/SFBA task force, that roads which lie entirely within the state of california are to be included in the California Wikiproject and its task forces. I have removed task forces where the road goes through more than that task forces scope, such as california 1, as that seems like excessive tagging (which i am happy to discuss with members of the cali project if they disagree). In case you are curious, i am not doing this to increase the number of GA/FA articles at the cali projects, as i have probably added about 1,000 stub articles to the project, which doesnt help it look better. I am interested in making sure the California and in particular the sfba wikiprojects are reasonably complete, which doesnt affect the work of other projects in the slightest. I wont revert your reverts, but i may bring any reverts up at ANI, for clarification.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, the RFC that was mentioned was specifically scoped towards BLP matters, which highways are not a part of. So that guideline is not based on actual consensus. Finally, I am really curious as to why you suddenly want these articles tagged in your project so badly - out of the four articles you retagged, your only edit to any of them was adding a portal tag here [44]. --Rschen7754 03:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The guideline i cited, while it does come out of a discussion of blp issues initially, is not stated as applying only to blp. The summary of the cited discussion includes the following: a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful. I am interested in these articles, and they unambiguously fall under the scope of the cali and/or the sfba projects. I want them tagged as part of these wikiprojects because they are part of the wikiproject. they are in no way tangential, and i periodically review the template of all the articles for discrepancies like unassessed articles, or to see if, say, the group of GA articles have an accurate importance rating, or the group of high importance articles have an accurate class rating (and yes, i do actually edit articles to bring up their rating). You claim that i am tagging excessively. the guidelines say that for "excessively" tagged talk pages, use the banner shell so the talk page is less cluttered. I have been doing that. 2 project tags is not excessive, and the definition of truly excessive relates to how tangential the topic is to the project. I would like to know why you are so determined to not allow any other editors to recognize highway articles as part of any other project? the Cypress Structure and its destruction are a very important part of the history of the bay area. Are you saying that if i am not actively editing the hiway articles, i cant recognize them as part of a project? maybe the 9,000 articles i have not edited should be removed from the SFBA task force, or maybe the whole task force should be shut down because there is no current collaborative project there. I have been staying away from any editing of the hiway articles out of fear that my edits will be dismissed. I dont even want to try to suggest edits on the talk page. As far as i can tell, you or the task force you are working on own these articles. I thought if i cited a policy or guideline, i could at least show that they can be legitimately tagged, for completions sake. I now see that there is probably no way to show you that what i am trying to do is entirely reasonable, as you have never acknowledged that any of my points are at all valid. would it help if i pointed out that the San Francisco Bay falls into Wikiproject Oceans (yes, i just added it, i doubt that project will find my addition disruptive), or that the golden gate bridge falls into wikiproject bridges, or that harvey milk falls under wikiproject biography? I dont think any of those articles are overtagged for being in sfba and another project. You have commented on your user page about the relative health of wp. just understand, your status as an admin, your absolute conviction that you are correct, your dismissal of my concerns, make it clear to me that unless something changes in the admin process, i could not possibly consider taking on any sort of admin role, despite having a pretty good edit history (57,000 edits, most of course being somewhat minor), and some familiarity with a lot of the policies and guidelines, and editing practices. I have a pretty good feeling that my postings to your talk page would somehow get me barred as an administrator. so be it. you win. I will drop this whole matter now, as its too painful for me, and why should i be involved in anything here which causes me pain? I will probably not respond again here (and definitely not with any feeling, only noncontroversial comments), and I will NOT take this to ANI, or try to work on the hiway articles or retag them. If someone else ever wants to address this, i might join them, but i wont take any initiative any longer. good bye and good luck, and thanks for your hard work on wp.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Rschen7754, I believe you are either a checkuser or clerk? Could you have a look at the TenMuses SPI and advise if anything is missing to go to next stage? I only ask since there are RMs ticking on that TenMuses precipated. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that clerks are reluctant to endorse that because by now the SPI has gotten very difficult to follow, and CUs are reluctant to look at it either since the clerks haven't endorsed it. If someone could leave a concise summary of why CU is justified, it may help. --Rschen7754 04:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I can't really see how it is difficult to follow, Cuchullain's presentation is very clearly set out and concentrates on the main sock activity. My fear is that any attempt to summarize will just result in another display of misdirection from the sockmaster. However I've noted your advice to Cuchullain. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Cuchullain has provided a summary recap. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is the recap In ictu means. Cheers,--Cúchullain t/c 13:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice on SP hunting

Hello Rschen. As an experienced SPI clerk, I wonder if you might offer some advice. I re-opened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang yesterday, after noticing his latest SP while doing NPP. The promotional tone of the article prompted me to look at the log, which showed that it had recently been deleted G5. But it would be tedious to do this for every new article I look at. How can a non-admin look for articles that have previously been speedied G5? Is there a log of G5'd articles somewhere, that isn't admin-only? Parsing user CSD logs one by one would be impractical, but if there were a central log, then I could write a SP hunting app, or add a feature to an existing utility. There are plenty of anti-vandalism tools, but no tools for sniffing out evidence of potential SPs that I can find. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Except for Special:Log/delete there really isn't any unfortunately. :( --Rschen7754 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hm, but I've only just noticed that the deletion log is searchable. A more general-purpose gadget to search the deletion log would be useful not just for SP hunting, but for detecting vandalism as well. I'll have a dig to see if that's already a feature in an existing utility, otherwise I'll try to write one myself. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

template

The template was full of errors - don't you actually look at what you produce? There was a big red error message. Further, it has references to google which are not within WP:RS. I toyed with the idea of {{db-g1}} first John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Tue 12:53, wikitime= 11:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It may have looked broken (which it wasn't), and even if it was it's still not a test! We don't throw out articles just because they suck. And Google Maps is a RS when used properly. --Rschen7754 11:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's not broken, why is it still sitting on Category:Pages with missing references list? Why don't you use your sandbox correctly, write a template correctly, instead of puting live tosh like this which has been broken more than one day (and is still there)? Use your time productively rather than bleat about other people who do. Why don't you pay attention to error messages? John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Wed 10:17, wikitime= 09:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't write the template. And I have 6 FAs, so I'd say that I use it productively. --Rschen7754 09:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It would have helped just to state the lack of references was causing categorisation errors. Rather than state the template itself was a "test" or "patent nonsense" (using the CSD terms), which it clearly was not. Using an unexplained CSD template to highlight the issue you have now explained is a little confusing, I cant guess your specific concerns if they arent stipulated as part of the deletion template, and when I contacted you, it wasnt elaborated on. Rschen directed me to your concerns here, and they have been fixed within minutes of him telling me about them. :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf6) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 6, and to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 10. It will be enabled on all Wikipedias on June 13. [45]
  • An alpha version of the VisualEditor was enabled on all Wikipedias on June 6. Please test it and report problems. [46]
  • Several VisualEditor bugs have been fixed; users can now add, edit and remove categories using the editor's "Page settings" menu.
  • Wikimedia error messages will no longer link to the #wikipedia [[<tvar|meta-irc-chans>:m:IRC/Channels</>|IRC channel]] on Freenode. [47]
  • The logo of 16 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a fourth group of updates. [48]
  • A test instance of Wikidata is now available at test.wikidata.org. [49]
  • Users can now patrol the first version of a newly created page if they visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges. [50]
  • Translation pages will no longer include edit section links (bug #40713). [51]
Future software changes
  • A report on mobile upload errors was published, and software changes to reduce their number will come soon. [52]
  • A request for comments on updating MediaWiki to use RDFa version 1.1 was started on MediaWiki.org (Gerrit change #67608).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Q re DanielTom sockpuppet reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[53] It's not clear to me which specific account is being called a sockpuppet of User:DanielTom. Could you clarify for me please. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That tag indicates that the account is the master account, and links to the cases so you can see the sockpuppets. --Rschen7754 22:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's all very confusing (probably I'm not familiar enough with this area). I've looked at the link locations and it isn't clear to me. What usernames are confirmed sockpuppets of User:DanielTom? (Could you just list them for me here?) Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC) p.s. Are these it? (Are these being called "confirmed sockpuppets"?): User:193.136.31.120, User:Daniel Tomé, User:Diogotome. Thank u. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You can look at the SPI investigation to see the confirmed sockpuppets. --Rschen7754 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I already told you I'm reading it but not confident I'm understanding it. I've asked you for simple confirmation here. (Won't you help me. What is your problem responding directly to my Q?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Q2. DanielTom requested a rename process on his username on March 23rd here. From User:Daniel Tomé to User:DanielTom. In light of that, how appropriate (or misleading) is it at this point to call that User:Daniel Tomé is a "confirmed sockpuppet" of User:DanielTom? (That seems incorrect and misleading to me. But again I'm not certain User:Daniel Tomé has been declared a "confirmed sockpuppet" on the investigation page, as mentioned, since I'm finding the data there confusing to interpret. But the userpage has a tag stating "is a sockpuppet of", so it seems so. I'm asking you to help me know what is fact and what is not. I'm expecting you to help with my Qs and not just refer me to other places that I've already informed you are confusing me. My questions here have been very clear & simple. What is the problem Rschen?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
At the bottom, it says what the three confirmed socks are. The rest may or may not have been used by DT; we simply don't know. --Rschen7754 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
At the bottom of what? If I found what you're referring to, I copy/pasted those three names above in this thread with you. (If that's correct, what is stopping you from saying: "Yes, those are it."???) And when you are referring to "the rest", I really don't know which usernames that refers to, or where to find them. (But, I don't need to know that. I just want to know and be sure of which usernames have been concluded to be "confirmed sockpuppets of User:DanielTom".) Q2. If User:Daniel Tomé has been concluded to be a confirmed sockpuppet of User:DanielTom, what is the logic in that since as already demonstrated above DanielTom made a public request for the name-change?? (I have no interest to irritate you, Rschen. I'm just looking for facts and understanding, ok?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well yeah, and then you posted all over the place when you didn't particularly like my answer, so yes I am a little bit irritated. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom, which you must certainly be aware of since you've already posted there too. --Rschen7754 02:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Rschen, I wasn't getting any direct answers to direct, simple, and clear questions to you, and you know it. (So, do you think I would continue banging my head against your wall of unhelpfulness (your Talk) forever? This is not a game, Rschen, but your choice to be obtuse seems like you think it is. You've wasted my time here totally. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I pointed you to where you could get the information. It's not my job to read the SPI to you. And I'm closing this thread. --Rschen7754 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about block evaders

Since you’ve just blocked the user that prompted me to ask this Help Desk question about dealing with block evasion, I was wondering if you might be able to answer it. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Should go to WP:SPI generally. --Rschen7754 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Removal of Rights

Hello Rschen, Would you mind removing my reviewer and rollbacker rights? Currently they are useless due to matters surrounding my enwiki account and on one/two occasions I have accidentally used them. So, removal is purely based on retirement of all non account related work. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your honor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"And finally, perhaps they should have considered the real name issue before they made a separate account simply to troll ANI. "

You've been elected or appointed to the bench somewhere? How are you competent to dispense real life punishments to a person, such as damaging their record so they can't get a job, apartment or relationship? Maybe they deserve what they got and more, but it is not our purpose to dispense such punishents, and continuing to do so will only antagonize the user and motivate them to create more trouble. Let's blank, eh. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see no reason why we should bend over backwards to protect the self-revealed identity of a banned troll. This isn't CU data, it's been self-disclosed, and removing the tag makes it rather difficult to tell that the user is blocked. --Rschen7754 12:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I can think of several sockmasters who have used their real names, too. --Rschen7754 12:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes the best kind of spite is to do the right thing as a human being. The last thing I would want to do is empower a troll to change how I treat someone, even the troll himself. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, as DoRD said, there's no way to delete the account, and doing a suppression of the account name would be a clear abuse of that tool. So anything that we do would be relative anyway. Furthermore, I don't think that we should be catering to the changing demands of a defacto-banned troll who is now communicating via proxy as Toddst1 noted. I don't think that we should be going out of our way to protect the real-life reputation of trolls and vandals, when this information was voluntarily disclosed - it sets a very bad precedent of allowing people to edit under their real name and then being immune from any Wikipedia sanctions (see David Gerard losing CU/OS a few years back). Tagging everyone, even the socks of trolls who are under 18, is the status quo, and not tagging *would* be a difference in treatment. I don't think this thread is particularly productive anymore, so closing. --Rschen7754 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1920s in Los Angeles

Hi there - I noticed your name at the Meetup LA8 page for the wicnic so I thought 1920s in Los Angeles might interest you. If not, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not something that I'm capable of working on at this point. :( --Rschen7754 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

An SPI may not have been closed in the normal way

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulflytribe where the page does not display a link to the archive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You just have to purge. --Rschen7754 17:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see it now. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf7) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 13. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 17, and on all Wikipedias on June 20. [54]
  • The Narayam and WebFonts extensions were successfully replaced by Universal Language Selector on June 11. [55]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • VisualEditor was temporarily disabled on Wikipedia sites on June 14 due to an issue that inserted a lot of HTML code. The issue is now fixed and VisualEditor works as before.
    • Users can now use VisualEditor to add images and other media items from their local wikis and Wikimedia Commons. [56].
    • VisualEditor also allows editing references. [57]
  • The new Disambiguator extension, which was previously part of MediaWiki itself, was enabled on test wikis. It adds the magic word __DISAMBIG__ to mark disambiguation pages. [58]
  • The newly enabled Campaigns extension allows Wikimedia Foundation data analysts to track account creations that result from a specific outreach campaign.
Future software changes
  • Universal Language Selector will be added to the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias on June 18. [59]
  • Starting on June 18, VisualEditor will be randomly enabled by default for half of newly created accounts on the English Wikipedia to test stability, performance and features. [60]
  • Two new webfonts (UnifrakturMaguntia and Linux Libertine) will be added to wikis that use Universal Language Selector. [61] [62]
  • It will now be possible to hide the sidebar while using the Translate extension to reduce distractions (bug #45836). [63]
  • A patrolling link will now be visible for un-patrolled pages, even if users don't visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges (bug #49123). [64]
  • A request for comments on enabling a new search engine for MediaWiki was started.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe. 00:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_20&oldid=1168307677"