Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger

Response to Mgillfr's statement
I-10 did have to work with others. This was the underlying motivation behind his being blocked. He cannot come back again to edit; this would be block evasion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, how long was I-10 blocked? Because I think he might come back in a couple months. Mgillfr (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are fighting vandals now that could possible be him, but we don't know for sure.Dave (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he's indef'ed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another response. It doesn't have to be this way, and the sad part is I do see a lot of potential for you. You say you like to make articles consistent, that's a good thing (provided flexibility is given for the odd cases). However, it's important to be smart about it. One article has been reviewed by dozens of editors from a variety of places and interests, and has been refined through years of hard work. Another article was thrown together in 15 minutes. Which article should be changed to look like which? Also, keep in mind why things are made consistent. For example, why put milage's in the county columns? Because in California, postmiles reset to zero at the county line. Putting a county columnn is the only way someone can compute the distance from the mileposts for a multi-county route. So we do it, because it makes sense to do it. However, if a road only traverses one county, or if CA were to change to statewide miles, this becomes a non-issue, and this information becomes redundant to the infobox. Tables exist to organize otherwise scattered information, not to include columns of information that don't apply or isn't scattered. If something applies to every inch of the highway, it doesn't belong in a table, it belongs outside of the table. Tables exist to organize scattered information that only apply to parts of the highway. Granted, there's no way a person can know all the rules of the english language and create the perfect article. That's why we should be working together, as some people know tables, others know grammar, etc. But you need to respect when 8 people say, no that's wrong, or at least think why everybody is of an opposite opinion. It's always possible one person is right and everybody else is wrong, but for rules of the english language or formatting conventions, It's rare. Bottom line. There's no reason for the hostility, with some flexibility and maturity, I could see us working together. There are no sworn enemies here, or at least their shouldn't be. Dave (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I tried to contribute constructively, either no one does anything to help me make my edits better (as I do sometimes make mistakes on creating junction lists) or I-10 comes back harassing me. I also have trouble working if User:Rschen7754 is still around. He just reverts me all the time. Couldn't he at least introduce compromises? I tend to be okay with them most of the time, like how I agreed to today on the CA SR 78 article. Mgillfr (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you are not following the standards of USRD. Standards are what the standards page says they are, not how the crummy articles implement then. A compromise between your position (which does not follow the standard) and my position (which follows the standard) results in an article that still does not follow the standard. If you don't agree with how we do things, then bring it to discussion. Don't just create your own version of an article and revert war people over it. (Keep in mind that we have been doing this for over 4 years so there is a reason to our "madness." ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you make changes that go against an overwhelming consensus from inside and outside of the project. The changes you want to make are to make the only Featured Article look like the rest of the articles. Featured Articles are the gold standard, the crème de la crème if you will. They've been copy edited and fussed over at many forums with project members and non-roads editors critiquing the article along the way. Many times a single article in one of the state subprojects will look different because it incorporates changes that resulted from the FAC of another article from another state subproject. Standards will change over time, so it would be a better idea to use the one FA as a template to improve the rest of the articles, instead of making it conform to the mediocrity of the masses. You should be working to improve the rest of the project instead of dragging the good ones down into the gutter. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just much easier to change an FA article to be consistent with CASh then to change every single CASH article to be consistent with the FA article. Mgillfr (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be the case, but it's not the right thing to do. There's a reason that FA is different, and for those reasons the rest of the project should be improved. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be easy, it's supposed to get better than it was yesterday. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. It may have been easier to stick with analog television, VHS tapes, 8-track players and landline phones, but the painful changeovers do eventually pay off. Same for wikipedia articles, most start out in bad shape and get refined over time. The one thing I've said is with the effort spent on revert warring exit lists, that same effort coulg have gotten another article to FA.Dave (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)