User talk:Damon207/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Damon207: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- FloNight  talk  15:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, Damon207. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
 * 1) Please update your information at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
 * 2) There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

defaultsort
I see that you have the "defaultsort" template listed as one of your Helpful Links. The template is actually only intended as a safety net for cases when people don't use the correct default sorting markup. —Paul A (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your unpleasant comment on another user's talk page
Would you rather I just revert your edits without asking a second opinion? Some of what you did goes directly against the Manual of Style, others looked questionable so I asked. I am not an "authority" which, again, is why I didn't unilaterally revert your edits.

Perhaps you need to read what's on the page every time you edit: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

I appreciate that you took the time to stalk my editing patterns so you can decide that I have no right to edit/monitor these articles, in spite of the fact that I created a good number of them and added the original infobox to many more. Once I discovered the amount of work to be done with re-assessment, expansion, and stub elimination, I decided to return to it since I now had enough time available to spend on assessment and poring over maps and log point files.

This is a collaborative project. If this is how you react to someone trying to help you improve your editing so it aligns with article conventions, maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. --Sable232 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do read what is on the page before I save an edit -- I always hit the "show preview" button before every time I save an edit. That is the honest truth. I double check and sometimes triple check before I save every edit. I am a stickler for the facts, for accuracy, correct spelling, and correct punctuation.

I do realize this is a collaborative project. I also realize - and have always known - that in 2006 you created a good number of the highway articles and added the original infobox. However, from 2007 to 2010 you were not active at all in editing the highway articles. I did a LOT of work on the MN highway articles during those formative years when no one else cared at all. I put in a huge amount of time researching from different sources (documents, maps, Mn/DOT references, etc.) because I wanted to get the facts correct. I do care a lot about the quality of the articles. Previously, a majority of the articles had no route description or history at all. In 2006, a majority of the highway articles consisted of one very short paragraph with many spelling errors. On many different occasions, from time to time, I caught errors that even you had made on previous edits in 2006. I should have politely contacted you to discuss them, but I never did. I am guilty of not contacting you before and having a civil discussion. I realize that you are back now - editing the highway articles - and I should welcome your opinions and thoughts on the edits that are made. As another user recently pointed out to me, it's perfectly acceptable for interests to wax and wane over time.

I will admit that I seriously overreacted with my comments the other day on another user's talk page. That was inappropriate and I apologize to you. I should have cooled off before I commented the other day. I was out of line and it is uncharacteristic of my behavior. I am sorry. --Damon207 18:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response and the apology. --Sable232 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peace. --Damon207 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this or your edit summary for it means... I explained in my edit summaries why I reverted parts of your edits... it simply isn't correct to say that the I-35/I-90 junction is in Albert Lea (unless at some point during this year the city annexed part of the surrounding township, but you didn't say anything about that in the edit summary). I reverted the addition of only a few county roads on U.S. 53 because it didn't make sense... it was inconsistent. There has to be a single, solid criteria for inclusion, whether its county roads appearing on the official state highway map, all CSAHs, or all county roads (or none, which is the case on most highways). There's greater detail on how I've done it here.
 * I'm not sure what you want... if my edit summaries weren't clear enough you could have just asked. --Sable232 (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the partial reverts of I-35 and I-90. The near complete revert of U.S. 53 is the one that I was surprised by. I read the greater detail conversation (November 4th / 5th) you just referenced between yourself and Fredddie regarding this. All of the county roads you removed are located on the official state highway map on the Duluth Area inset. (Maple Grove Road / Haines Road / Arrowhead Road / Stebner Road / Lavaque Road / Ugstad Road). That particular segment of U.S. 53/MN 194 is the stretch of the Miller Trunk Highway corridor in the cities of Duluth and Hermantown. The average daily traffic volume count at all those Duluth/Hermantown intersections is significantly much higher than all the county roads north of Hermantown (including the city of Virginia, etc.) on U.S. 53. The Miller Trunk Highway corridor is where the major shopping retail area (and the Int'l. Airport) are located in the Duluth metro area. In my opinion, including these county routes on the major intersections list is vital to the quality of the U.S. 53 article. Traffic congestion had become so heavy in the Miller Trunk corridor during the last decade -- resulting in Mn/DOT's construction project in years 2009/2010 -- Mn/DOT reconstructed the intersection of U.S. 53 and Maple Grove Road (CR 6) .. and earlier in the decade, Mn/DOT reconstructed the intersection of U.S. 53 and MN 194 (Central Entrance) to accommodate the increased traffic. In recent years, Mn/DOT also added three new signal-controlled intersections at Lavaque Road (CR 48 south) ; Sugar Maple Drive ; and Burning Tree Road. For the same reasons - Mn/DOT also plans to reconstruct the U.S. 53 and Haines Road (CR 91) intersection --and-- the U.S. 53 and Arrowhead Road (CR 32) intersection --and-- the U.S. 53 and Mall Drive intersection (in Hermantown) -- when funding becomes available in the future. Lets put it this way -- this is Duluth's version of the "I-494 strip" in Bloomington/Richfield/Edina. Everyone in the Duluth/Superior metro area commutes to the Miller Trunk Highway corridor for much of their retail shopping services -- including the Miller Hill Mall -- plus the major Airport is there, etc. --Damon207 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I might interject a comment here into your discussion. Rarely have we ever used traffic counts to justify the inclusion of a roadway in a junction list. Typically, the inclusion criteria have always centered on the classifications of the roads in question. All interchanges along a freeway or all intersecting state highways on a surface road. That's the norm. In Michigan, I only include county-designated highways which are numbered by MDOT and included on the state map (not insets) but maintained by the participating counties. The exceptions to that are in cases where you'd have CDHs for one county and no county roads in another making the list "unbalanced". Then I'd include numbered primary county roads, not secondary CRs. The gist of that is, CRs consistently along the whole length of the highway, or no CRs.  Imzadi  1979   →  19:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It has to be all county roads on the state highway map or none, or all CSAHs or none, etc. (excepting of course the fact that all grade-separated interchanges must be mentioned regardless of classification). On a longer route like U.S. 53, "none" is the way to go because including all the ones on the state map would make the junction list too long to be usable. --Sable232 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)