| Revision as of 15:30, 5 October 2006 editSeicer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,321 edits →Two Things: Done! Moved crap to archives!← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:10, 5 October 2006 edit undoSeicer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,321 editsm Moving block info to Archive 4 due to page renderingNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| *Hudson Drive north of Route 57 east of Route 10 in Massachusetts - | *Hudson Drive north of Route 57 east of Route 10 in Massachusetts - | ||
| * could help. | * could help. | ||
| == State route naming conventions poll == | |||
| Regarding this edit: Please do not unilaterially mark this poll as rejected. That was not a helpful edit and the process is running as ArbCom intended. Thanks. ++]: ]/] 11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (refactored, I prefer discussion be threaded) | |||
| :ArbCom intended for there to be consensus. There is none. --] (] - ]) 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The assertion that there is no consensus is not necessarily true yet, it's too early in the process. Also, I'm not sure I agree that ArbCom intended there be consensus. Rather, they intended that a process be executed that got to a determination, whether or not it was a consensual one. Further, with 6 admins involved in evaluating things, it is not one person's place to make such a unilateral determination as "the proposal is rejected", and of all the people to make such a determination, you seem (given the ArbCom findings) particularly unsuited to make it. The edit you made was not helpful and I suggest you not do it again, as it is disruptive to do so. Consider this a more formal warning than the first message I left, since you're arguing the point with me instead of agreeing not to do it again. ++]: ]/] 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The heading of that part of the ArbCom decision is "consensus encouraged". What more do you need? --] (] - ]) 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Encouraged does not equal Required. ArbCom wants a decision on this matter, and some decision will be forthcoming soon. ++]: ]/] 12:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm sure that if the reviewing administrators arrive at a reasonable decision there will be a consensus that this decision should be adopted. --] 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop asserting that consensus is required. It's not. What's required is reasonableness and common sense. Your edits are not helpful. Rather they are obstructive. Consider yourself warned. ++]: ]/] 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Consider me warned that you're trying to obstruct arguments you disagree with. --] (] - ]) 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh come on, your accusation is unreasonable, SPUI. Just let it go. ] ] 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not going to happen. --] (] - ]) 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Does this mean that you clearly intend not to stop being disruptive? ++]: ]/] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I haven't been disruptive. ] --] (] - ]) 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You do realize you are the ONLY ONE in opposition to finally putting this bullshit behind us and getting back to actually writing an encyclopedia. It's been 6 months man. Can't you concede that the majority doesn't agree with you and move on? I would in your place. This whole thing has gotten pathetically sad. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Polaron is my sockpuppet? --] (] - ]) 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::His objections are far different then yours, and are more geared toward being concerned that we left too MUCH ambiguity for people to weasle in more page moves. ] ] ] <b>VIVA!</b> 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"When you create a naming guideline that contradicts Common Names, the arguments will never stop. --Polaron" --] (] - ]) 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hey at least Polaron is being civil about all of this. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 19:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not my take on what you're doing. My take is that you are repeatedly asserting things about consensus that do not apply here, and obstructing others in working through the mess that you were in large part responsible for making. My take, further, is that you're not taking this warning seriously, but instead arguing about what the warning relates to. Continue being disruptive in this manner and you will be blocked, and I will immediately put it up on AN/I where I expect to get sustained. Last warning. ++]: ]/] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 15:18, 1 September 2006 Lar (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (ArbCom Probation Violation) | |||
| == Blocked for 31 hours == | |||
| You were warned. Then you were warned again and you argued about what the warning was about, meanwhile arguing with all and sundry on the discussion page. | |||
| You have been blocked for 31 hours to let you cool down a bit and to the the discussion proceed without disruption for a while. The action has been placed on ] for review. ++]: ]/] 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I honestly don't see where I was being disruptive. If anything, your attempts to knock (and success of knocking) me out of the ring have been disruptive. --] (] - ]) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|I did not violate the ArbCom probation. I have only engaged in civil discussion.|decline=SPUI, you are being a butt.}} | |||
| Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been blocked for taking part in these discussions. --] (] - ]) 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I understand it, you were blocked for (1) marking a discussion in progress as "rejected" (2) taking it to ANI simply to enlarge the flamewar (3) bickering needlessly with everyone over everything. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::(1) was done once. When it was reverted I did no more. (2) was done to inform others of what had happened. I didn't do (3). So what's left is one edit I made ten hours ago. Hardly continuing disruption. --] (] - ]) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you really are honestly unable to see where you're being disruptive, I can see how that would be a problem. But, in that case, wouldn't the wisest course of action be taking other people's word for it when they tell you to cut it out? Maybe you should try that. ] ] 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == state highway naming == | == state highway naming == | ||
Revision as of 17:10, 5 October 2006
| This is SPUI's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
| 1 2 3 4 |
- FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. Mindspillage
- second everything Mindspillage wrote. - SimonP
- we do of course expect admins to use proper judgment and interpret disruption according to community norms, subject to review at WP:ANI. —Dmcdevit
- encourage restraint by all. Matthew Brown
- Roads that are limited access but not freeways
- Long Island Motor Parkway
- Bronx River Parkway
- Because they run through parks:
Of course none of these are the lowest form, as it is rather hard to find confirmation of those and have them be "notable" enough. Here are some that are probably not "notable":
- Hudson Drive north of Route 57 east of Route 10 in Massachusetts - "The Company also conducted traffic counts at the Hudson Drive access, but stated that it did not conduct an LOS analysis since Hudson Drive is a limited access road with limited associated turning movements (Exh. HO-E-71)."
- could help.
state highway naming
Sorry to see you blocked. I'm trying to find common ground on this but the proponents of Principle I just seem to become more and more inflexible at various attempts to compromise. I suggest something and it gets shot down with something like "you lost just accept it and stop debating us". Any ideas you have on the matter would be helpful. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI: I'm sorry to have had to block you again, but I did, with regret. I chose 15 minutes, a very short block, so you get the point that I am not kidding but you are not really stopped from participating. Please let me repeat... I'm not kidding. Your recent contributions are doing the same thing as the thread on 1 Setpember... arguing instead of moving this forward. Just don't. Please. When you come back just explain what needs to be done and leave it at that. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If your aim was to make a mockery of the whole idea of consensus, congratulations. If your aim was to convince me that the process is a farce, congratulations. If your aim was to get me to be productive, oops. You failed. --SPUI (T - C) 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- My aim is to implement what I believe ArbCom wants to have happen. I remind you I asked ArbCom for clarification about my approach, and barring them sahing I'm on the wrong track, and also given the support I'm getting on AN/I (as I read it) I am going to continue with that approach. Does it make a mockery of consensus? That's a harsh way to put it, but yes, consensus has been suspended, (except that there is a metaconsensus to suspend it, whether or not you agree) for the duration. I am not convinced the process is a farce,any more than the whole question is a farce in the first place. As for your being productive or not, that's your choice, you were blocked because in my view you were not being. You can come back, and be productive, (under my metric and that of the other admins involved), or you can not participate (voluntarily or involuntarily) which is entirely up to you. But this process will run to conclusion. With or without you. I'm really sorry. It's nothing personal. But you weren't helping. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Take some time off before you go permanently berserk. --SPUI (T - C) 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's my advice to you as well. If you get contentious in that discussion you need to take some time off. One way or another. This is not my normal mode of operation, I assure you. but if you or anyone else gets contentious you will take some time off. You're off block, so my advice is to hang a reply on TinMan's latest post explaining exactly what needs to be done to implement P1 for NJ (P1 is accepted, and will be implemented, for all states except those named off in the P1 proposal at the time of voting) ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry. That's not going to happen, not with your "gonzoing". --SPUI (T - C) 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I understand and accept your position that you may not be able to productively work under these constraints. But, absent someone making me stop, I am going to be trying to drive this along, with or without you. At the end, you're going to be held to the outcome just like everyone else. It is totally your choice whether to participate or not. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI, what I'm seeing here is that you've admitted that you're unable to see when you're being disruptive. This explains a lot. Yet, you're simultaneously not taking other people's advice when they tell you to chill out. You're giving no indication whatsoever of being willing to change your approach. Is it any wonder that more and more editors feel you've exhausted the community's patience? Friday (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
double-redirect bot
Hi SPUI, Recently a poll was passed to change all the programming langauges from X programming language to X (programming language) -- kind of like the highway naming poll, except with a better result. However, there's a billion double redirects now for every page, and it's getting painful to be fixing them. Do you know of a bot that cafn help me with this? Thanks, atanamir 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Texas Highway sign request
I have a request for a new Texas Highway sign. I need a Toll Route 49 sign made for the State Highway Loop 49 (Texas) article. Thanks. 25or6to4 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the pictures of the grand opening, including signs: . 25or6to4 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Redirect from last december
You made Not porn redirect to Online puzzle. What am I missing here? JoshuaZ 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Online_puzzle&oldid=13867841, List of online puzzles. ~ PseudoSudo 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Map legends
What do you think about the map legend discussed at WT:USRD/MTF? —Scott5114↗ 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:Accessible.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Accessible.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Tinlinkin 06:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Potentially problematic edit to Interstate 335 (Minnesota)
I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Shield requests
A few more shield requests for Texas...
- State Highway 349
- Business State Highway 121-H
- State Highway Loop 13, 291, 345, 353, 375, 466, 467, 478, 481
- State Highway Spur 53, 148, 421, 536
- Farm to Market Road 11, 34, 289, 305, 659, 793, 1053, 1110, 1281, 1338, 1341, 1516, 1518, 1621, 1776, 1905, 2037, 2169, 2217, 2448, 2499, 2538, 2903, 3039, 3040, 3041, 3078, 3351
- Ranch to Market Road 479, 783, 1111, 1312, 1674, 2023, 2083, 2291, 2398, 2424, 2886, 3130
Thanks, --Holderca1 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll get to them, maybe I won't. Roll the bones. --SPUI (T - C) 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Problem. Whenever you get the time. --Holderca1 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what software do you use to create them, maybe I will try my hand at creating them. Thanks. --Holderca1 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
U.S. Route and Interstate shields
I see you have a released-to-public-domain template on all your shields. However, wouldn't U.S. Route (except California style) and Interstate Highway shields, as creations based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, be works of the U.S. government and, thus, public domain by default? --Kitch 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- If they're public domain, what does it matter? --SPUI (T - C) 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
PS: Time to split this discussion page into archive pages. --Kitch 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Two Things
Hey SPUI,
1. What exactly do you need for the RI signs?
2. PLEASE archive this page, it takes over 45 seconds for it to render on my piece of shit computer. Thanks!
xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks! xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest the same thing. Over 300 sections already! Peter O. (Talk) 23:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found User:Werdnabot does well at automatic archival, only fails if timestamps are missing. You might even get the amusement of breaking the bot, see instructions here. — CharlotteWebb 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Someone else should just archive it, maybe he won't notice! Stratosphere 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done. I'm tired of it chugging down my internet connection, taking 30+ seconds to render on my wireless! He was delibrately doing it to piss users off, and never followed up on MANY suggestions. May the page load times be gone for good (and any reverts should be considered vandalism for subjecting people to such torture). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)