User talk:Morriswa/Archives/2013/January

Rollback
Morriswa, this is a quick notification to let you know that I have removed your "rollback" rights. I really do appreciate you engaging with the RfC in good faith, and I am impressed by the honesty of your response to the concerns. But right now I'm slightly worried by the actions you've taken and your own understanding of them. Now, this isn't something that reflects badly on you as a person: you're clearly a bright guy and, more importantly, able to self-analyse (which is a rarer skill than you'd think); I have confidence that in time you'll get the rollback rights back if, having read up on the tool and its governing policies more, you decide that edits that use it are the kind of thing you want to do.

Right now, however, it's apparent that your schedule and the amount of ground that needs to be covered to reach a stable understanding of rollback don't mesh nicely :/. My advice would be to pursue actions that don't involve rollback for a while until you've got a firmer footing on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I am happy to answer any questions you may have (about editing generally or rollback in particular) and provide any assistance you might need. I hope this note communicates the situation properly :). Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Georgia county demographics update
Allen - having followed some of the conversations you have had with others, and knowing you are interested in articles that relate to Georgia, may I provide a possible idea for a project you may be interested in? In the Georgia county articles, there usually is a demographics section, but which most often contain data from the 2000 census. 2010 data is readily available, and these sections could really use an update. Here is the link [ http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1] to some 2010 data as a start - and no worries if this is not interesting. Concertmusic (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

USRD Cup questions
Just to let you know, I have created your submission page. The scoring table and future announcements will be posted there. If you have any questions about the Cup, please ask on the talk page before we begin next week. Thanks and good luck! –Fredddie™ 12:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User conduct RFC notification
This is to let you know that I've opened a user conduct RFC against you at Requests for comment/Morriswa. --Rschen7754 07:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please cease your controversial automated edits and respond to the RFC? --Rschen7754 17:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a polite suggestion here, but you don't want to ignore the RfC; doing so would only make the situation worse. In short, stop doing the editing that's been deemed "controversial" or "problematic", engage in the discussion in the RfC, come to some solution, and move forward. As I posted on the RfC's talk page, I do want you to continue editing, but I'd like to see you channel your energies and enthusiasm along a well-appreciated and appropriate avenue.
 * But if you ignore the RfC, that will only escalate the situation, and it could be the basis for an Arbitration Committee case if left unresolved. The community could decide to block your account from editing among other potential sanctions at the RfC or ArbCom levels.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even saying something like "I acknowledge this RFC, but I will reply in the next day or so." would be better than ignoring it. –Fredddie™ 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stuff like this edit, which is an example of behavior being discussed in the RfC while the RfC is still open is not a good idea. In fact, it's a great idea if you wanted to demonstrate that you don't have a clue about the subject of the RfC, and possibly if you wanted the community to restrict your abilities to edit further. Please consider this a friendly warning.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Arkansas 162 used to be part of US 64 Business. That's why I added that category.
 * What can I do to ensure that my edits are constructive and helpful? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the RfC is related to your efforts using HotCat to add categories to articles. It would be a sign of good-faith efforts to deal with the issues presented in the RfC if you stopped using HotCat and stopped adding categories to articles until the discussions in the RfC concludes. The second part of that good-faith effort would be to then engage in the discussions themselves.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a last friendly suggestion. Stop performing categorization tasks, and then start discussing them. Failure to engage in that discussion is the major reason why I co-certified the RfC. I'm beginning to think that it is time to propose editing restrictions or other sanctions that should be placed against you.
 * A topic that's come up in the IRC channel also relates directly to you. You lament that you're attempting to be helpful but that you feel discouraged. Soon enough afterwards, someone from the project offers advice and/or resources, but you never seem to use them. Our attempts to help you are left ignored. So, stop ignoring good-faith advice given to you, stop performing editing activities that are controversial (as in "where there is some dispute or disagreement about them") and do start engaging in appropriate discussions. Failure to do those three simple things may earn you a topic ban or other restrictions.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't think that I'm stupid or whatever. However you (and others) feel or think of my edits, I am trying to be helpful to USRD and other areas on Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia is my favorite website, and I enjoy editing articles. Editing that I consider easy to do is some of my favorite editing to perform. The harder stuff (like research) is discouraging to me.
 * I have a very forgetful mind (I'm only 35, though). So, you can tell me something, but I will probably forget it later (and forget to check the "notice boards" (this page, the RFC, the USRD talk page, etc. later on to verify). It is not intentional.
 * I am not trying to ignore any discussions, comments, etc.
 * What do you suggest I do, so that I don't get blocked? I want to continue to edit, but I want my edits to be helpful and constructive.
 * I really want to apologize for any problems that I have caused. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Step 1: When you're notified that a type of your editing is "controversial", stop performing that type of editing. Period.
 * Step 2: Engage in the discussion about that type of editing immediately.
 * Step 3: Keep discussing until all parties come to some kind of understanding. Maybe the people with the concerns are right. Maybe you're right. Maybe both sides are right.
 * Step 4: When the discussion is over, take the advice and concerns presented and learn from them. Apply that new knowledge and move forward.
 * It's really that simple. As for forgetting to check pages, I use my watch list. There are pages that I want to know when they are updated; they are on my watchlist. The first thing I do when I sit down at my computer to edit on Wikipedia is to check my watchlist. I keep checking it periodically while I'm at the computer.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If I could figure this Wikipedia thing out when I was a freshman in high school, I'm sure that you can too; to be blunt, I'm getting really annoyed at your "HELP ME!!!!!>!>@>@?@#?$#?$#$#" posts. Keep in mind that a good portion of our admins (and some of our arbitrators) are between the ages of 18 and 25, but I know of at least one arbitrator who is in her 50s or 60s. --Rschen7754 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I watched too much Law & Order when it was on, but allow me to make a pseudo-legal analogy for a moment. You say that your intent is to be helpful in your editing. That's great that you're not intending to do harm, but in a court of law, if your actions lead to the death of another person, even if that's not your intent, if a reasonable person can foresee that potential outcome, it's still a crime. Applying this doctrine of negligence to Wikipedia, if your editing is causing issues, even if you don't intend for that outcome, and if you've been warned that your editing has had negative consequences, it's just as if you intended to cause disruption in the first place if you continue the editing pattern.
 * In the most recent example, you've been working on categorizing articles, and creating categories in that effort. Clearly you're trying to do something useful, however, you've been approached a couple of times with the message that some discussion is needed to re-focus that effort. Even with that warning, you've continued to do category work, which means your editing is now disruptive, and can be sanctioned by the community.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754, all I have been asking for is help in an easy-to-understand-for-me method. If I truly am "annoying" you, that has not been my intent. Yes, I may be 35, but some tasks are over my head. Unless I had teachers to super simplify the harder aspects of editing, maybe I could get to the level of people like you and Imzadi1979. Speaking of Imzadi, you had an interesting -- and valid -- point, with your analogy. I never thought of it like that before. What I was trying to do was place the main articles (Interstate 5, U.S. Route 1), the state-specific articles (Interstate 5 in California, U.S. Route 1 in Florida), any routes that used to follow the current or former routings of current highways, and any bridges/tunnels/other features of the highway into categories for that specific highway. Three other things: 1. I didn't answer any comments last night (after about 8:30) because I had to go to work. I work tonight, as well. Tonight is my last night on "Mids" shift. On Monday, I shift to 10AM-10PM, Eastern (still the 2-5 days a week). If anyone is usually on then, maybe, on my days off, I can get on IRC with you. 2. Imzadi, did you take your username from Star Trek? I've been curious, but I've never asked you. 3. Have there been any more details for the WikiCup laid out? I really want to use it for beginning my "u-turn" (road reference) on editing. I can work on expanding and de-stubbing more Georgia State Route articles. Once again, I have meant no harm in my editing. I only wanted to improve Wikipedia articles on roads. However, I fell on my face. I hope you will forgive me, and I hope you will be willing to work with me again. I will be willing to re-read posts again and again until either I understand them or I can look for answers, etc. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are planning on participating in the WikiCup, please sign up here. We only have four competitors so far and could use some more before the cup starts. Most of the WikiCup details are already laid out, but the rules aren't really "set in stone," so to say, until the Cup starts in February. – TC N7  JM  00:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And even then, the rules have always been flexible. –Fredddie™ 00:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Editing that I consider easy to do is some of my favorite editing to perform. The harder stuff (like research) is discouraging to me."
 * "I truly want to get closer to the level of editing of Imzadi1979, Rschen7754, and the rest of the USRD folks."
 * These two statements are fundamentally incompatible with one another. Editing is hard work. For example, it took me a week of research and writing to get California State Route 52 to where it is now. That's seven days of getting up, working on it all day, and then going to bed.
 * Speaking for myself, I only got to where I am today with a lot of hard work. Whenever I didn't know how to do something, I sat down and figured out how to do it by myself. California State Route 52 needed a new map, and nobody was working on my request. So I took a weekend and learned how to make maps. And now I know how to make maps. USRD needed an update, and nobody was taking the initiative to fix the template. So I took a few hours, read through some pages, and figured out how to do it. Now I know how to edit complicated templates. When you're a USRD editor, you get broad exposure to a lot of areas of the encyclopedia pretty quickly.
 * That's how I approach a lot of my work outside USRD - I first try to figure it out myself, and if I can't, then I ask a few brief questions in the appropriate places. Our IRC channel is open 24/7, and there's people who are willing to help during all hours of the day (even overnight in the United States). If we printed out all the advice that we've given you, it would be enough for a short novel. But it's useless if you don't do anything with it.
 * In short: no pain, no gain. --Rschen7754 07:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried and tried and tried to find information on Georgia State Routes to place in the articles. All of my online searching either comes up empty or only results in copies of the pre-existing pages on other websites.
 * I don't know how to make maps, nor am I able to edit complex templates too much. I would like to do these and a whole lot more. Any help you guys could provide would be great. I promise that I will slow down my editing and try to listen closer to what you tell me.
 * One more thing: I'm not totally sure I understand the rules for the WikiCup. Please, help me understand anything that I may be confused on. Also, be aware that I most likely will only do the class improvement "stuff", so I doubt that I will have any chance to win. I will use the Cup as an "excuse" to improve Georgia articles again. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Class improvement is the sort of thing we are trying to encourage. As state #50, Georgia has a lot of bonuses for class improvement. You should ask Concertmusic where he's getting all his sources - he's been able to bring some stuff to B class.
 * The rules are a bit funky, but they're trying to protect the encyclopedia. In the past we've had users turn in crappy articles that were written just for the points - in other words, they were trying to put in the least amount of work for the most amount of points. BTW, you should come into the channel more often - we're able to help you more quickly there, and you can listen to other people's conversations and learn from them. I'm usually up until now every day of the week, and there's usually a few editors up at this time too. --Rschen7754 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a direct question of you on the RfC's talk page at WT:Requests for comment/Morriswa. You should probably answer it.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)