User talk:Bigfitz79

Image copyright problem with Image:Lee_S_Dreyfus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lee_S_Dreyfus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Write in prose; do not use lists
Per the Manual of style you need to write in paragraphs; do not use lists. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but...
The Manual of style does not forbid lists, it just says "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." A step-by-step routing does not read easily using plain paragraps, and winds up containing considerable redundant language. The Manual of style itself uses many bulleted lists.
 * Then how are we able to write articles like California State Route 78, Kansas Turnpike, etc. without lists? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * REPLY: With all due respect, those articles you cite are dealing with regional routes on a city-to-city basis, not turn-by-turn details on local roadways. The second bulleted list in the US Route 55 article was pre-existing, I'd agree that one could be written in prose but I didn't add that one and I saw no compelling reason to change it, as my intent was to add the rather complex routing from Hampton to Minneapolis.  I appreciate that you are trying to accomplish uniformity amongst articles, and that like myself you are volunteering your own time to improve WikiPedia, but I do not interpret a reasonable discouragement of lists as a complete and total ban.  Indeed, there are lists all over WikiPedia, including within road articles.  The Manual of style leaves room for exceptions and common sense, and even links to Ignore_all_rules, which states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  I'm not one to ignore rules, but I believe that a list is the best and clearest way to arrange this information.  Not the only way, but the best and clearest.  Without some flexibility to use a list, the article might have remained a stub ad infinitum, and all users are free to edit my contribution as they see fit.  I appreciate consistency but also flexibility and sensibility.  I'm not perfect (few are) and admittedly don't know every rule and formatting guide, and am probably not even posting this response properly, but I quote Wikipedia Policy: "You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia."  I hope to be able to do just that.Bigfitz79 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules should not be applied in this case. At the U.S. Roads WikiProject a list for a route description or history is never acceptable. Trust me on this one. If you don't, bring it up at WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you, and I may even "de-listify" the history section at some future date as a gesture of good faith. I just don't agree with the absolutism, particularly when it goes further than the rest of Wikipedia, and admittedly find it off-putting as a novice contributor.Bigfitz79 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well let me explain where I'm coming from. I've been editing highway articles since March 2005 and developed WP:USRD, the standards for these articles. I've seen a lot of highway articles, including several short ones that give turn-by-turn descriptions with prose. I've seen several articles go to WP:FAC and WP:GAN, and seen some pass and some fail. So when I see a new editor who just started editing U.S. roads on that very day say "I'm right, I'm doing it my way, not the proper way, and you're wrong, my way is better" I find it very rude and I get very angry. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is not personal, no need to be so hostile and condescending.  I do understand where you're coming from, what's clear now is that the lists ban is a requirement of the USRD project, not of Wikipedia as a whole.  The style manual and the prose tags (which link to the embedded lists policy) allow for exceptions, USRD apparently does not, and a new contributor would have no way of knowing that different rules apply to road articles.  Unfortunate, but that's the way it is.  You initially portrayed this as a Wikipedia policy, which is why I questioned it.  I never said that I refuse to write in prose (as you have portrayed it) I only said I thought a list was more fitting in this situation and that the absolutist nature of the USRD policy was unwise.  I even said I would improve the history section (which already had an existing list, by the way), and if I can come up with a concise way to convert the route description to prose, I'll do that too.  I have made an effort to make this contribution, however imperfect, but what I get back is anger, exaggerations, and condescending personal attacks for questioning a policy which differs from that of Wikipedia.  I appreciate your committment and past efforts of all editors, and Wikipedia could not be as good as it is without dedicated editors, who help novice contributors improve.  However, a more tactful approach to this situation would be "Thanks for your contribution, USRD WikiProject does not allow bullet lists of any kind and requires that all content be written in prose.  Your contribution is being tagged for improvement within the article, please consider making these corrections yourself to help us maintain consistency between roadway articles.  If you opt not to make these improvements, the article will remain tagged until improved by another editor.  Thanks again for contributing."  If such a reasonable approach were taken, people probably wouldn't question the policy discrepancy, you wouldn't scare off new contributors and wouldn't wind up getting so angry.  It might be easier to point blame and label others as immature, but a more sensible and forthcoming approach would be unlikely to generate questions from contributors, and would save you a lot of frustration.  The article tags are the right approach, anger is not.  We're all just trying to help.Bigfitz79 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, and apologize for being so abrupt. Lately new editors have been causing way too many problems on Wikipedia (not just at USRD... all over Wikipedia.) Once you've been an administrator for a few years, you eventually get to a point where you have little patience for newer users who show the slightest potential for causing problems (even if they wouldn't). Does that justify my getting angry? Probably not, and for that I apologize. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do appreciate it. Obviously I'm not a fan of the list ban but I will abide by it for future contributions, and if I can come up with a way to do so, for the Hwy 55 contribution as well.  I would also advise adding an explanation of the ban to the USRD style manual, I couldn't find any reference to it in there.

Rotaries
Hello, I noticed you made some additions/clarifications to the Roundabout and Rotary articles. I have a question: One thing you mention is that traffic in the inner circles of a rotary may not exit, which is opposite of a roundabout. I present a rotary that I dislike: The I-93/MA-110/MA-113 rotary in Methuen, Massachusetts. This rotary is two lanes wide, and the inner lane circles and can exit while the outer lane is only for immediate exits (or for those rotary exits that are only a single lane wide. Do you know if this is atypical or if I misunderstood your point or...  Thanks, CSZero (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Methuen's 93 rotary is a device from hell. EraserGirl (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lowell/Lawrence Blvd leading from Lowell to the Methuen Rotary is a device from hell as well. How many people does that short stretch of road have to kill? CSZero (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no traffic engineer, but I am a New Englander. I've been giving this some thought and I believe both the Rt 2 rotary at Concord MCI is set up this way, as is Grant Circle at the end of the expressway section of 128 in Gloucester.  I've been asking around the office, and apparently this is typical in New Jersey as well, so I'm not sure we want to say it's typical to work one way or the other without a citation... CSZero (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good - thanks! I don't drive on the Methuen rotary with regularity and never at times of high traffic volume.  EraserGirl seems like she might be watching this page and I know she lives around there...  You are correct responding on my page and me to yours.  Although it is kind of strange and hard for others to read, the advantage of the big orange "you have new messages" box when you sign in is very useful.  Happy editing, CSZero (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically I troll for any discussions regarding Methuen. I am trying to improve Methuen's WP presence and that includes tagging, trolling and linking things. I drive that rotary frequently, but i try to steer clear of it at peak hours. it's quite nasty. but no one will be doing anything until they do 'The Widening' when that part of 93 gets a makeover I hope they will improve the accessibility. EraserGirl (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Somebody just went in and blew away the Rotary article. I'm going to try to talk some sense into them on the talk page without starting an edit war. CSZero (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Roundabout disadvantages section
I removed that section because it was unsourced original research. If you can find a reliable secondary source that clearly states the disadvantages to a roundabout, then you can go ahead and add only whatever you can verify in the source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)