User talk:67.160.137.69/Archive Imzadi1979 1

Notifying me of any activity on this page
If you reply, or there is any activity on this page, please notify me on my main talk page. I will not get notified of any activity that is done on this page, since I am not able to watch this page on a watch list.
 * To do this click on the word (talk) on this paragraph, and
 * click on New Section on top of page
 * in large box you can paste the code  .
 * then click the Save Page box.


 * 67.160.137.69 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of this Page
Before giving me feedback, be aware that I am still trying to learn the WP system. Right now I am trying to learn the archiving method.
 * To Whom it may concern, I am currently working on this page and its incomplete for now. Since with this user I am having alot of different discussions, I was trying to find a way where i can keep it sorted. I notice that some other peoples archives, seem unsorted to me, and the reason i want to make this page so I can keep the discussions sorted and indexable.


 * This explanation is incomplete and is a rough draft. When it is ready for viewing, I will put a talkback templete on there user talk pages, of the people that is interested or have feedback about what I am doing. Bare in mind I only have a limited time to spend on wikipedia, and I might not have a quick turnaround time. If there is any user that claims that I am doing anything that I am not allowed to do, for me to take it seroiusly I need to know the exact (actual sentence) location of where it says that I am doing something wrong, not just the page address.

User:Imzadi1979 Issues:WT:RJL, WT:USRD/STDS Oreg hwy 86,78,95 and Wikipedia Policy, Time zone signs on highways of SE oregon.
b---talk page of hwy86

I would like to make additions to the oregon route 86 page
I would like to make some additions, not deletions to this page.

Is this talk page being monitored by other users or editors? 6/25/12 0322 UTC

Im new to this talk page. If other users or editors are monitoring this talk and/or my user talk page, please: - mention this on my user page -with your identity (just enough needed for contact) and -preferred method of communication and -your average checking frequency, so i know if my messages will be read.thanks Please see my user page at User_talk:67.160.137.69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.137.69 (talk) 03:28, June 25, 2012‎ (UTC)


 * You're requesting things that most registered editors will not provide in a public forum. We have watchlists which alert us to any changes made to pages we've watched. I will not release my identity (you may refer to my by my user name, which is Imzadi1979) and if you wish to directly contact me, there is User talk:Imzadi1979 or the e-mail link from my user or user talk pages. If you wish to propose any changes to the article, please make them here as this article's talk page is the proper forum.


 * Now, to address the substance of your previously made, and now reverted changes, in short: no. The exact mileposts of county lines or other boundaries are not needed in the junction list of the article, unless that is a location of a junction that merits inclusion. We limit these to include only other state highways/routes/roads, US Highways or Interstate Highways; county roads are normally not included. If we're dealing with a freeway, then all exits are included, regardless of the type of intersecting roadway. On articles that involve state lines, those are included because the mileposts reset at the state line. If we don't show the terminal milepost for Minnesota and Wisconsin in addition to Michigan on U.S. Route 8, no one can verify the overall length of the highway.


 * If you want to include a mention of the time zone boundary in the text of the RD section, that's fine, even with an approximation of how far away from the county line or other feature it is. ("the road crosses into the Mountain Time Zone approximately 23 mi east of the Harney–Malheur county line; the county line is shown as the boundary on some maps though"). Anything more is overkill and should not appear in the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Imzadi19796/25/12 0557 UTC I am using bold letters just as a title header for my paragraphs for faster scanning of the article. It has no emotional intent.
 * Your Identity:My intent was just to find out how to contact you, not trying to get your info.Just letting you know
 * How items included are to be decided/determined "as needed".Who is "We"?
 * Can i ask who determines, what goes on the Milepost list. Do you personally make this decsion, if not could you tell me who, and is this person authorized by wikepedia to make these decisions? I noticed that the MOS:RJL page is not a protected page and is allowed to be edited. Am I supposed to edit the MOS:RJL page and make changes to these rules. I personally think the info i suggested should be included, since sometimes i am disappointed on how much info is not included on these pages. I think its a nice reference (since maps have this listed to estimate locations on the map to actual mileposts to determine exact distances) to have county lines or other info on the milepost graph, since its a quick way to scan and see the info, instead of the lengthy reading of articles.  I have more to say, on why this is a good idea but i will wait for your reply. I first want to establish who gets to decide these standards.
 * How Overkill is determined?
 * When you mentioned overkill: I would like to know as mentioned above, how you or who determines this. I feel that alot of these highway pages are underkill if you dont mind me saying that. I would like to discuss increasing information on these pages. I can find alot of people that think that most of the info on these pages are overkill already. It would be nice if the page is set in a way where each viewer can choose there over/under-kill level.
 * If you claim that I am doing anything wrong
 * If you are giving me commands to follow or claiming certain things about my actions, please cite where it says this information (please tell me the page and paragraph). If your cite is off a unprotected page,please explain how that page has authority. I am unclear if you are an authorized reperesentitive of wikepedia or just another user over stepping there authority.
 * Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.137.69 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We=the Wikipedia Community. The Manual of Style pages, including the specific page on "road junction lists" aka MOS:RJL, should not be changed without previous discussion to insert or remove content. The appropriate method to get a change is to make a proposal on the guideline's talk page, which has the WT:RJL shortcut. Changes are only made to the MOS pages based on a consensus for a change, although minor copy editing that doesn't alter the meaning are acceptable.
 * Protection level doesn't determine the authority of a page. Policy pages (which is the top level, second only to the Five Pillars may not have any level of protection. Guidelines, of which the MOS is one, are the next level, and the bottom of the heap are essays.
 * As to my opinion, it is overkill to specify the exact milemarker reading for a county line in a junction list. The key word there is junction, and county lines are not junctions. Yes, we include some other non-junction related items like major bridges and tunnels, but we historically have not included boundary lines unless they coincide with a junction except in the case of state lines for the reason I detailed above. We write for a generalized audience here, and the exact locations of boundaries are not data points that interest our readers. We also have standards for inclusion based on the general requirements for long and short highways. Adding 14 or so more rows to Interstate 75 in Michigan for all of the county lines is unnecessary, IMHO.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you don't need to preface your comments with the timestamp. Please add four tildes to the end of your comments, and the server will convert that into a signature. The signature will contain the timestamp for when you saved your edit.  Imzadi 1979   →   06:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

''Discussion related to how Wikipedia works moved to User talk:67.160.137.69.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC) e---talk page of hwy 86

Response to edit comments of time zone signs on highways of SE oregon. Under "June 2012"
To Imzadi1979, If replying: Please reply at the end of last section of this page with your user name This info refers to revisions on Hwy 78, Hwy 95, and Hwy 86 in Oregon. To those that object to my revision of highway page revisions that allow more detail with time zone info. My Intent was to add this information to the respective pages, since this comes in helpful since this information is not displayed on maps. I believe that i did not remove any info from any previous edits. The only source i have is actually being there, and the digital video log from ODOT, and google earth street view. Im a little new to wikepedia's politics, and just wanted to add this info to wikepedia. Im not trying to overide work from others. I didn't have a user's account since i did not want to spend alot of time with accounts. Responses to specific comments 13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Federal Regulations conflict with signs, As seen on this page at "http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3d8646d71a0cc133cc47b789f4556df4&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:1.0.1.1.31.0.16.9&idno=49" Title 49 section 71.9 (a) mentions one boundary definition, but the highway signs that are displayed, conflict with this definition.
 * Response to Collaborate consensus. I wanted to know why others dont try to collaberate with me before bumping my edits. I dont think i was undoing other people's edits. I dont see how this is vandalism since im putting truthful informaion and did not delete others information. If i did delete any other info, then please mention what i deleted, and feel free to reinsert it in another edit.
 * Road Junction Manual MOS/RJL. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. I read through the mos/rjl and did not find anywhere that said i should not include the info that i did. This page has a exlusion list and did not have timezone or county line boundaries excluded. Could you tell me exactly where i violated this page.
 * Highway 95 Oregon.  I dont think i contradicted but provided more detail. Please mention what I contradicted?. Feel free to check google street view for verification.This page can be referenced. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/rics/docs/Straightline_Charts/slchart_pdfs/Hwy456.pdf?ga=t
 * Highway 86 Oregon. Response to comment:"wouldn't it be in the same place?", there is a westbound sign but not a east bound sign. If your traveling eastbound you dont see any sign, you would just see a blank sign board on the left side of the road.  This time zone boundary sign is about a 1/2 mile from the definition in the CFR 49 71.9, which includes Oxbow oregon, which would imply that Oxbow,OR is in mountian time even so its in baker county oregon, which is stated that the whole county is in the pacific time zone.
 * Baker County Oregon. see Highway 86 section above.


 * Replies:
 * We have a guideline around here called WP:BRD, which stands for "bold, revert, discuss". You were bold in adding the time zone boundary, but you were reverted, and so the proper next step is to discuss the proposed addition. The third step is not to continually re-insert the content by reverting the reversion. The first reversion is an objection to the addition, and the burden is on the person wishing to add the content or make the change. In other words, you must convince us of the appropriateness of adding this by discussion the change.
 * Second, your reversions were undoing actual improvements like the conversion to using jct and jctint, both of which were bringing the article up to modern standards.
 * Third, MOS:RJL doesn't include time zone boundaries on the list of items to include. It does specifically exclude two types of junctions where it otherwise requires junctions to be listed. Consider that list the exceptions to the first item to include.
 * The overwhelming majority of American highway articles exclude county lines. I can think of exactly one that has a county line (M-152). State lines are included in interstate articles like U.S. Route 8 or U.S. Route 131 because the mileposts reset at the state lines, and because then the separate states' mileages are indicated to verify the total mileage listed in the infobox. County lines are not needed for such verification.
 * Time zone boundaries are not necessary details for junction lists. For articles in Michigan that cross the CT–ET boundary when exiting or entering Gogebic, Iron, Dickinson or Menominee counties, I make a note of that fact in the RD section and exclude it from the junction list. Anything more, and you're assigning undue weight to the crossing in comparison to other jurisdictional boundaries. The more important details are the intersections or interchanges with other roads, not the exact distances of the boundaries. The signs for boundaries are rarely located in the exact correct locations anyway, so specifying their locations to 2-decimal-place precision, which you'd have to do to match the rest of the table and the source, is overkill. The DOT may move the sign around and not place it on the right spot, but they don't just move entire intersections or interchanges a few hundred yards at a time.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also of note, you can't cite yourself as a source in an article. You can cite a log document, even the content of the sign itself (preferably with an online photograph or maybe a link to Street View), but your personal observations that are not published someplace or fixed in some manner are what we call original research. Please don't add "I was there" into either the footnote or the notes of a junction list table because we can't verify that.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have unanswered questions from Talk:Oregon Route 86
Talk pages on articles are supposed to be related to improving the content of the article. Since we're veering into the territory of how Wikipedia works, that's not the appropriate forum for this discussion. I'm making my replies here instead.

Please answer
 * How this issue and by who's authority, does this issue get resolved if we disagree.?
 * I was planning a proposal in the WT:RJL, whats going to happen if we are in this same dilema, after my edits to this page?
 * Who Decides the overkill level?
 * From what you claimed on my user page, As far as the WP:BRD page goes, isnt my option on what to follow since this paragraph is included on the WP:BRD page "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."
 * When you say "convince us", who is "us".
 * How do you define convince, since i believed that i provided proof with my source?
 * Do you think i did not appropriatly provide a way to verify what i was claiming?
 * What actual improvements am i undoing by my edits, that you claimed?
 * When you claim "County lines are not needed for such verification", then is verification a factor for items to be included?.
 * Who judges: interest our readers, and whats necessary; as you mentioned?
 * How is "necessary" determined for milepost lists? I have seen Milepost lists have different titles as junction lists or intersection list, etc. I propose the list to be called milepost list so more info can be included.
 * From your comments such as: "The overwhelming majority of American highway articles exclude county lines.", Is this appropriate since the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT page mentions the following "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
 * Your comment of signs not being the exact location, the source of the info did give the location of the accuracy i provided. If it did not, then i would have not used such precision.
 * When i cited my source, correct me if im wrong but i did cite a legitimate source and just added my personal observation as a added note, not intended as my source. Like i said, if this is not allowed, then please cite where.

Thanks

Just a foot note, All i wanted to do is just simply add info that i know is true with proof provided, and did not want to take anything out what others put in. Is it such a big deal if someone just wants to add the info i put in. Sometimes time zone info is necessary since people make reservations in places where they need to know the local time in the area. I dont know where people come up with terms about what im doing with vandalism or waring. When i did my revert, i did it because someone took out my edit without any reason and thought it could have been a mistake. I wish this did not have to be so complicated. 67.160.137.69 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * How this issue and by who's authority, does this issue get resolved if we disagree.? —There are various methods. Since this is about an article related to a highway in the United States, we can ask for additional input from WP:USRD, the U.S. Roads WikiProject through its talk page, WT:USRD. There are additional forums where others can be approached to provide input as well.
 * I was planning a proposal in the WT:RJL, whats going to happen if we are in this same dilema, after my edits to this page? —WT:RJL is widely watched by editors interested in highways around the world. There is an active discussion right now about formatting issues related to a situation with Australian highways and how they are named or numbered.
 * Who decides the overkill level? —The individual editors involved, working on, and interested in the specific page.
 * ''From what you claimed on my user page, As far as the WP:BRD page goes, isnt my option on what to follow since this paragraph is included on the WP:BRD page "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." —No, but I'll explain in greater detail why BRD is still a good idea to follow to avoid breaking an actual policy.
 * When you say "convince us", who is "us". —"Us" and "we" is the wider Wikipedia Community, in other words, the interested editors that follow, edit and otherwise work articles. Usually it's not a discussion involving the whole community, just the subset that shows up to the party.
 * How do you define convince, since i believed that i provided proof with my source? —Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about what's verifiable. Related to that, we don't just include every tidbit of trivia or information related to a topic. We use editorial judgement to make sure we aren't placing undue weight on certain topics or aspects of a topic in specific articles. We also only cover notable topics. For instance, any map may prove the existence of a particular street or road, but not every road in the world gets an article. For the US, we typically limit coverage to state-mainted highways (Interstate Highways, US Highways, state routes in Oregon, etc) and certain major or otherwise notable county roads.USRD has a sister project, U.S. Streets (WP:USST), that focuses on city street articles which similarly limits coverage to only the most important examples.
 * Do you think i did not appropriatly provide a way to verify what i was claiming? —No, but you did inappropriately reference yourself by saying "I was there" in the article.
 * What actual improvements am i undoing by my edits, that you claimed? — had converted the one article to use jctint, which is a template we use to create the individual rows of the table. Since about a month or so ago, this template not only handles formatting each table row in a consistent fashion, it also calculates the kilometer measure of a milepost for our non-American readers, something which is preferred by MOS:RJL. He also converted the article to use jct which consistently formats the " – " constructions used in each junction row of the infobox (that article summary box in the upper right corner of an article) or the junction list table. Jct means that we don't have to remember how each state's marker graphics are named nor how each state's highway articles are titled. It also makes sure that things like the guidelines on alternative text for images are consistently applied. As any guidelines or naming conventions related to how these templates function are changed, we can update one template and have thousands of articles automatically receive the benefits. When you undid his changes, you reverted the articles to an earlier state that lacked the templates. With over 10,000 articles for the USRD project, we haven't gotten around to updating everything to use the templates yet, but we're working on it.
 * When you claim "County lines are not needed for such verification", then is verification a factor for items to be included?. —WP:NOT, states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information." As such, we limit the information provided to what is considered essential. County line locations have not been judged to merit that level of need. Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles contains links to the talk pages of each Featured Article (FA) for the USRD project. These articles have been reviewed at a forum called WP:FAC against a strict set of criteria and judged to be among the finest articles we have to offer. The reviewers at that forum come from all areas of the world and all kinds of subject matter specialties. and not once in those reviews has anyone asked for the milepost readings for county lines. if anything, they've questions the level of detail we have included in the tables.
 * Who judges: interest our readers, and whats necessary; as you mentioned? —As I said above, we have a number of articles that have been reviewed from outside of our subject-matter area. WP:USRD/STDS and other standards pages, like MOS:RJL, have been developed to define standards based on the years of feedback on the successful and unsuccessful nominations at FAC and other forums.
 * How is "necessary" determined for milepost lists? I have seen Milepost lists have different titles as junction lists or intersection list, etc. I propose the list to be called milepost list so more info can be included. —The differing headings related to some geographic anomalies related to the early history of the project. USRD was formed by merging projects focused on articles in particular states or topics (Interstates, US Highways) into one national project. In the early days, some state projects called the section "Junction list" and others "Major intersections", but all called it "Exit list" if dealing with a freeway. We have not forced a standardization on on title for non-freeways at this time. Your proposal would not be appropriate because not all states actually place mileposts along side all of their highways. My home state of Michigan only erects mileposts along freeways, not surface highways. Even if they all did, a "milepost list" would be a listing of where each milepost is, meaning a 300-mile highway would have to have 300 mileposts listed with their locations. Such a list would not be useful, nor interesting, to the majority of our readers.
 * From your comments such as: "The overwhelming majority of American highway articles exclude county lines.", Is this appropriate since the TALKDONTREVERT page mentions the following "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." —Your argument though seeks to overturn years of precedent on what to include or not include in these tables. Additionally, it's adding additional information with little benefit to the majority of our readers. It may not be possible to add the additional entries you'd require for county line locations if a state's DOT doesn't include that information in the necessary log files or maps. There are editors out there that would rather we not include any sort of formalized junction list, seeing it as extraneous trivia to include detailed distances. (I had a FAC reviewer question the veracity of the mileposts given on a Michigan highway article, saying that MDOT could not possibly have measured it to the the nearest 0.001 of a mile, even though that is what the maps say.) In short, we already have a finely balanced set of items to include based on years of reviews of many dozens of articles. Remember too, consistency across a set of articles, be it all of Oregon's highways, all of the US's highways, etc is a good thing. We have standards, in part, to enforce that consistency to give our readers a more professional looking product, and to know when content is missing from the articles. (If our standards page didn't specifically require a history section, some editors might exclude it as "not required", even if it's a huge omission of content.)
 * Your comment of signs not being the exact location, the source of the info did give the location of the accuracy i provided. If it did not, then i would have not used such precision. —And if a snow plow or a drunk driver knocks the sign out of the ground, will they get out the surveyor's tape to ensure that the replacement is in the exact right and logged location? Did they get out the surveyor's tape to make sure that the original sign was placed exactly on the boundary? The log may show where it's supposed to be, in other words, where detailed measurements on paper say that the boundary crosses the roadway, but that doesn't mean that the sign is at that location, even with modern GPS. Compare that to an intersection. The log values of those are based on measurements on the ground. In other words, the DOT measured the distance from intersection A to intersection B to C to D, etc and generated the statistics from it. Intersections between two highways rarely change locations, but arbitrary lines on a map, like a time zone boundary, can be moved with a signature on paper, rendering articles instantly incorrect.
 * When i cited my source, correct me if im wrong but i did cite a legitimate source and just added my personal observation as a added note, not intended as my source. Like i said, if this is not allowed, then please cite where. —WP:NOR, the policy that forbids us from using "original research". The log, as I recall from when I looked at it, doesn't state that there was only the one sign erected for the one direction, with its counterpart on the opposite side missing. WP:V, the verification policy says that we deal in what's verifiable, not what's true. I can't verify your thoughts or opinions, which is why your personal observations, unless fixed in a format that can be cited, cannot be used. WP:RS, the policy on reliable sources, states that we have to use sources generally known to be reliable, and places restrictions on WP:SPSs, or self-published sources. We generally can't use blogs or other materials that are published by the creator without some form of editorial oversight. There are exceptions to these rules, but they don't apply in this case. Taking these together, you have to summarize already published information gleaned from sources with a reputation for fact-finding and error-checking; we can't insert our opinions (WP:NPOV) or observations (WP:NOR) into the writing we do.

As for your footnote, it's good that you don't want to remove information, but we can't just add any information we like, even if we have a source for it. We have to place the content in context, and this is an encyclopedia, not a book of trivia. Not every piece of information will make the cut to be included. The fact remains, the exact milemarker of political boundaries along a highway has not been judged over the years to be a necessary piece of information. The one exception so far in the overwhelming majority of cases is that we do include state lines. The reason that we include them is that milemarkers in the US reset at state lines.

Let's assume that Highway 999 in a state runs from Foo, a city in the middle of the state, northward to Bar, a border town on the state line. MP 0.0 is in Foo and MP 123.45 is at the state line in Bar. If I didn't list that state line, and instead listed the last junction with another state highway in Whoville at MP 98.76, what would a person reading the article think when I said that Highway 16 was 123.45 miles long? They'd see 98.76 as the last reading in the table and assume I overstated the length by 24.69 miles somehow. Or maybe Highway 999 starts at MP 100.00 because it was shortened, but not remeasured. If the last milepost in the list is then given as 223.45, the reader would see that 223.45 - 100.00 = 123.45, the length of the highway.

Let's extend that hypothetical one step further and say that this was US 999 instead, and after it crossed the state line at Bar, it went to Great Big City, terminating at MP 12.34 in Great Big State. We include the state line so that a reader can understand that a) the MP 123.45 is followed by a new MP 0.0 for the second state and that b) the length is then 123.45 + 12.34 = 135.79 miles. Nowhere in either of these examples did knowing that there was a county line crossing at a MP 2.96 matter. Outside of this exception related to political boundaries where the MPs reset, we have not included boundaries, unless related to a junction. (There are intersections that fall on a city or township line in Michigan, for instance. M-82 and M-120 fall on a county tri-point that is also a township quadpoint; the location of that point would not make the junction lists if that wasn't an intersection as well.) We are not a collection of indiscriminate information; that means we do discriminate between what details we will and won't cover (discriminate in the meaning of telling the different between things, classifying, not racial or ethnic discrimination.)

It's not a big deal to add information, however, it is a big deal to constantly re-insert something that other people have removed. There have been many discussions about making BRD an official policy, and while it might not have that label, it's treated as such by many editors in the community. WP:3RR, which is a part of policy, says that you can't revert a page more than three times in a 24-hour period; the three times is not a guarantee, it's a rule of thumb to prevent edit-warring. Edit-warring is bad because it disrupts the content of an article. A reader won't know if s/he pulls up an article if s/he will a get copy of the article with the information included that you want, or not. BRD is a preferred method to avoid 3RR/edit-warring. In short, you make a change, and if someone objects, they're revert you. If you still feel the change is warranted, you start a discussion, and any agreed-upon changes will be made at the end. Another method is to propose the change first on a discussion page. That way when the change is made, there is a wider support for it already.

Constantly reverting an article to a poorer state of affairs is one form of vandalism. Stripping out refined formatting is like spray painting graffiti on the page, even if it's still better than the kiddies that insert "John is teh gay [sic]" or blank the page for no reason. You said, Sometimes time zone info is necessary since people make reservations in places where they need to know the local time in the area. Well, the article on a city or county should have the time zone information; that is a detail that isn't as important for a highway. Several Upper Peninsula of Michigan highway articles have the time zone boundary, but not in the junction list with an exact milepost. They note in the prose of the "Route description" that when the road crosses the specific county line that it also crosse the time zone. That's sufficient, but the exact milepost is too much detail.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Imzadi1979 6/26/12 1131 utc
 * Just to let you know. I have a detailed response to all your reply issues. I just have to see when i have time.
 * Please see the first section of this talk page for my info.
 * Im assuming your monitoring this talk page, i think on a daily basis. If not correct, please let me know.
 * Please dont reshuffle my talk page. If you have any suggestion to my page then please let me know right after this reply in this section.
 * I would like to have any communications from you in our section so its not confused with discussions with other users. If you have a suggestion on talk page organization, feel free to let me know. 67.160.137.69 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For Imzadi1979 Please start your reply here 
 * Reply from Imzadi1979 date/time utc

Talk page guidelines
Just some feedback.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to consult Talk page guidelines. Part of those guidelines includes a prohibition from editing other's comments. You probably shouldn't be changing the headings other editors assign to a section of a talk page unless the heading breaks policy. (If it attacks someone, presents the comments in a non-neutral or biased light, etc.)
 * We sign our postings, and our signatures include a timestamp in UTC generated by the server. (I've noticed that your manual timestamps differ by several minutes or even vary by the hours used.) Don't fight that, just let the computers generate the time stamps. If you need just the timestamp inserted someplace else, type out five (5) tildes.
 * We're supposed to create new sections for new topics, which the software will place at the end of a page when you use the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page. Sections on talk pages are not dedicated to specific users, they're separated by topic. You really shouldn't label them with user names, because if had something to add to a discussion thread I started, he can.
 * Also, you can't "activate" a user page for yourself because you haven't registered an account. Only registered editors can create user pages. I would recommend that you register for an account. If your IP address assigned to your computer changes, or if you decide to use you laptop from a WiFi hotstpot, use a public computer at the library, etc, you won't have the same IP address as you do now. Also, by registering, personal information, like your IP address is masked. I can trace your IP address to know what city is registered to your IP address, what Internet provider hosts your service, what area code and even the geographic coordinates assigned to the address... coordinates that may actually pinpoint your house. Actually, anyone can do this by clicking the "geolocate" link at the bottom of this page.
 * I will explicitly state that you're asking for information about other editors in a fashion that's bound to make people uncomfortable. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort with it's own distinct culture created by its community over the years. Let people volunteer the information about themselves they want to share, and don't expect them to provide you with some sort of schedule on their replies.
 * The bit about a wait time on editing isn't appropriate. We don't have such rigid rules. Anyone can edit here, and anyone can object to a change. There's no timeframe that guarantee an "implied consent". I've suggest that we merge articles together that have existed separately for five years. I've reverted changes to an article moments after they were made.
 * "How I understand it, that Wikipedia rules are only on protected pages (pages that's not editable)" is also false. The level of edit protection, or no protection, applied to a page has no bearing on making something a rule. Policies and guidelines are clearly identified as such at the top of the page, usually with a "in a nutshell" summary box. Don't assume that if you can't edit something, it must be a policy. Some editors have created personal essays to explain their opinions on a topic and have them semi-protected so that anonymous (IP) editors can't change the page because the pages were vandalized. That protection doesn't make it policy. Some policies are not under any level of protection at all.


 * Since you seem to want to do things your way around here, I'm probably taking your talk page off my watch list and walking away. You're making a mess of your talk page by being overly bureaucratic and insisting on practices contrary to how the community operates. Look, I get that you're new, but you have to be willing to learn how we do things around here, and take the feedback that's offered.
 * Wikilinks, or links to other pages on this website, are enclosed in double square brackets. External links are enclosed in single brackets with a full URL. It's not necessary to to use a full URL to link to another page on this website.
 * Don't wikilink to items that aren't pages or possible articles. You seem to be using double brackets to create red text, but you're actually creating a link to a non-existant page, which could be very confusing to people.
 * Don't modify others' comments without a good reason. To do so is uncivil, impolite and actually could be something that gets your access blocked.
 * Look, I'm all for encouraging new people to contribute, but we have ways of doing things around here, and if you're not willing to learn a little, I'm going to stop trying to teach.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm going to walk away after I post this. If you stick around long enough under a single IP address, you'll eventually need to archive your page. (My talk page is automatically archived by a bot.) If you use the bots to do so, they'll look at the newest timestamp, in signatures, in each section and copy the entire section to the archive once it's old enough. The extra blank section headers will be left behind. Those extra section headers also muddy the table of contents for the page.


 * This is now the third time that I've had to say this, so I guess you don't care, but it's frankly rude and not allowed to change other editors' comments. You're altering what they have said, and in effect, "putting words in their mouth". Just leave the headers alone.


 * If you really want red text, you can use the or  tags from HTML to change the color attribute. However, I would recommend that you not use the same shade of red used by our "redlinks", which are links to non-existant pages. (Red links aren't bad, they show us where we can still create articles. Even with almost 4 million articles around here, there are notable topics yet to be covered.)
 * There's no need to tell others to post at the bottom of the page; that's standard practice. Most of the editors that will post here are probably going to be from registered accounts, so they already know that. If someone doesn't, just quietly move the thread to its proper location.
 * You don't own this page; the wikipedia community owns all pages, including user pages and user talk pages. You own the copyright on any content you individually contribute, but you "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" according to the notice below the edit window. Yes, we defer to users in terms of what they place on their pages, however the content of a user's page has to conform to policy and have some expectation that it will further the goal of building an encyclopedia. WP:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and content from user pages can be deleted by members of the community.
 * Let people reply when they want, and don't try to set up some kind of schedule for their comments. There is no set time period for discussions in general. Speedy renaming of categories (WP:CFDS) has a 48-hour window to go through without and objection if the request meets specific criteria. WP:CSD, the criteria for speedy deletion, impose timeframes up to a week depending on the circumstances. RfCs usually run for a month. Others, like the discussion over an amendment to MOS:RJL currently ongoing will last until they are done and consensus is reached. If a change is made while an interested editor is away, the discussion can be reopened at a later date when they return. There is nothing around here that can't be reversed somehow, so no change is truly permanent. But asking for people to state how often they check your page is pushing too far, because everyone has a life outside of this website, and that life may or may not impact their participation frequency.
 * Attempting to force your ideas and beliefs on how this page should be "run" won't work, as our talk page guidelines, community cultural norms and policies will override that. In short, stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and use the tools provided.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

To Imzadi1979 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * My responses, when i have timeEverything you said, I have responses to but dont have time to address every item at this time.

I did not alter other editors comments except for the section heading, and to not even alter the section heading as you mentioned i found a way to have it labeled for my self with a special symbol so i an see a better description in the content list as seen above. Otherwise its to unsorted for me. If you claim that i altered/edited your comments other then adding a added section header then please tell me where. I have asked for proof before.
 * I did not alter, others comments

-If you reply, then -another user replies with a new topics, then -you reply with the same topic after the other user's new topic. this leads one topic being fragmented all over my talk page with other topics.
 * Please dont alter my talk page If you must send me at the message at the bottom, then fine, but i dont prefer it. I prefer issues to stay in the same section. What I am afraid of is the following:


 * I will send a message on your talk page I think I would rather discuss this issue on your talk page (that im assuming your monitoring), that way you can sort it any way you wish, except for editing my comments, which we both agree to I think. If you have a preference, on how you want to be contacted you can let me know. Im not sure if ip user can send private email messages to users

67.160.137.69 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please leave me alone for now If you must leave me a message then fine. But I prefer that you just leave me and my talk page alone for now, until I have time to respond to the highway issue.I will leave a message on your talk page when I am ready to respond, so you dont have to monitor my talk page.

Wikipedia is not a social networking site
From the last line of that information page (which summarizes policies and guidelines): "Wikipedia users who also make no constructive edits other than to their own user page, user talk page, or the user pages and user talk pages of others face a block as well as their user page deleted if when notified of such do not change their actions." Consider this a notification of that. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and you've spent most of your time here playing around with the formatting of your talk page, reformatting or mandating things in contravention of how we do things.
 * Other users don't get dedicated sections. This is not a standard practice listed at WP:Talk page guidelines, and remember that you don't WP:OWN your talk page, the community does.
 * If your talk page is getting too long, you can set up archives of it.
 * You can either manually copy items to a page such as /Archive 1 or
 * Set up the code so that a bot will do the work for you.
 * Please don't add so many horizontal rules to your page. When scrolling, these lines "flicker" on some users displays creating distracting animations that could actually be harmful if they trigger an epileptic seizure.
 * Please don't add blank section headers before other sections.
 * Such sections would look like: ==Section 1==
 * ==Section 2==
 * Discussion content here...
 * If you set up a bot to archive, these blank sections won't be copied over because they don't have a timestamp from a signature. (Bots only copy the signed sections based on the last timestamp present.)


 * Your faux user page at the top of your talk page (unregistered users editing under their IP addresses only can't set up user pages) wouldn't be archived if you don't sign it or otherwise insert a timestamp, so there's no need to include "This section remains on top of talk page" in the heading.
 * When replying, do so in the section your comments relate do, and don't start a new section. Otherwise you fragment the discussion, and run the risk that any archiving will separate the comments.
 * You should notice that everyone leaving you messages has ignored you request to start them in a specific place. Why? Well, we use the "New section" link at the top of the page to start a new section, and this is how the community normally does things.

If you have something to contribute to articles, please do so. If all you are going to do is play around with this talk page ad inifinitum, then please reconsider your place and purpose here.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please dont Judge me,,Your "Playing around" remark I dont appreciate you making comments about me without knowing my side. I am not playing around, Im trying to learn the system, that helps contribute to the articles.
 * Aware of Policys you mentionedI am aware of the policys that you mentioned.
 * My learning planI need to find a way to organize, my talk page with archives. I will try to learn this on my own for now.
 * Im not using this as a social networking site I believe everything I am doing is to broaden article's, I can explain in detail but dont have time for now.
 * talk page guidlines' I am aware of this page, and it said i can clean up my page, and organize sections into one section.
 * Your "Own page" remarksI know I dont "Own" the page, when i refer to my page I think I am just referring to the one I am using.
 * archiving I am still trying to learn the sorting and archiving system, and I want a way where its orgainized for me before I start the archiving process.
 * I have additional responses and comments, when i have time I still plan on responding to all your messages, but I dont have the time to make this a part time job. So just to let you know, I will leave a message on your talk page when I am ready to talk to you. Otherwise for future comments from you, If i dont respond then this means i have responses but dont have time, until i respond.
 * Interim, you have your way In the interim you have your way the road pages we discussed, and I have not challenged your reverts in the interim, even so i think i should. But I think your pushing it to try to get involved with my talk page.
 * Your Authority I am not sure what your authority is to give me orders, and how to tell who has authority to give me orders.
 * Feel Free to report me If I am doing anything against Wikipedia policy, then I prefer to talk directly to someone that has authority.
 * My (Not own but use) Talk Page, your business Why is my own (the talk page I am using), any of your business. I thought we had established that you where to leave me alone, until I get back to you.
 * Once again please leave me alone until further notice In the mean time, Im just trying to learn the system, so it can make sense for me. If i have any questions, then I will ask you.
 * Did I ask you for anything?I believe i did not ask you for anything with my talk page.
 * Your infinity remarkWhen you say infinity, which i think your latin word meant, do you consider 2 weeks infinity (please hold your answer until i respond on your talk page). I started dealing with this stuff just 2 weeks ago.
 * 67.160.137.69 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are playing around. You haven't made any edits to articles, just user talk pages lately, most of which lately has been to enforce your non-standard formatting of a talk page. Seriously, if you want to play around with formatting, use the WP:Sandbox. You can even made direct edits to articles, but remember that other editors may make improvements to the formatting (and take a look to see how and maybe why that was changed). Sure, some content will be erased totally at times for various reasons.
 * Please don't reinsert the numerous horizontal rules again. I explained why they are a problem, but I'll repeat it again: when scrolling, they will produce a "flicker" effect that can actual physical harm to those susceptible to epileptic seizures. Please don't reinsert them, or if you do, please use just one!
 * All users have "authority" around here to help enforce policy, decorum and the general culture. Administrators may have additional buttons they can push to actually block and editor or IP address, or to protect or delete content, but it is the general community the decides the standards for those actions. You, as a contributor here, are considered a part of the community as well, and you're bound by its rules, guidelines and general culture. I'm trying to help teach you facets of those guidelines and culture, but you don't seem to want to listen. Please consider what I'm trying to tell you a helpful lesson, and not "orders", but understand that by refusing to learn and assimilate into our culture a bit, you're not going to make yourself an asset to the community.
 * If you want to have automated archiving, take a look at User:MiszaBot/config. That page will detail how to add a template to the top of this page so that a bot (an automated account) will do the archiving for you. I have it set up to archive items 48 hours after the last comment (based on timestamps) because I like to keep my talk page relatively clean. You could set it to archive items after a longer interval. As I stated though, it is not compatible with your usage of blank sections which is also not normal on talk pages. (Blank sections have no timestamps so the bot will ignore them. That is also why some users dislike the talkback notice when added to a page without a signature as the bot won't see a timestamp and won't archive them.)
 * WP:OWN applies to behavior, and can be a shorthand for the concept that you can't assert behavior that reverts things to your personal, preferred version of something. It is very rare that another editor will intervene to edit or change items on a page in your userspace without an invitation to collaborate together, however when it is is done there is usually a good reason and shouldn't be reverted lightly. (Note that I haven't changed the content of of this page, just items related to its formatting.) As I said though, you're bucking the way things are normally done around here, and in one case, actually setting up real-world physical problems.
 * You are not using Wikipedia currently to help build an encyclopedia. The majority of your recent edits are to your user talk page or other users' talk pages. If you need help figuring out how to format items using the wikicoding system, there are the Tutorial and the various help pages that start with "Help:" . (A word like that before a colon is a page name is a namespace, and there are several like "Wikipedia:", "User:" and their talk page equivalents; "mainspace", or the "article namespace lacks a prefix.)
 * I'm still waiting for your detailed comments on why we should overturn years of precedent to include non-state political boundaries in junction/exit lists. Others are too. While we're waiting for comments (which shouldn't involve detailed formatting), you're reformatting this user talk page constantly.
 * The talk page guidelines don't favor/allow/whatever combining unrelated topics together into a single section. In fact, they do favor spitting topics into separate sections.
 * I didn't "get my way" with the roads pages. We've restored them to the status quo as supported by precedent. The burden is one you to provide a reason to change that status quo. You may have a reliable source for your addition, but it still might be undue weight to include something. In the case of the milepost for a county line or the time zone boundary, two of us have stated that the milepost number isn't needed in the table and a simple description in the route description prose is sufficient. It's too much detail on a minor topic point to include in the table, even if the discrepancy in the location of the line is both interesting and valuable to note.
 *  Imzadi 1979  →   01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)