User talk:Freewayguy/Archieve 7

State/neutral shields again
Well, I'm not really sure about the other states. However, when it comes to Oklahoma, I'm merely assuming that the neutral shields are contractor-installed, since most of the shields in Oklahoma City south of I-40 date from when the highway was torn out and rebuilt during the 1990s. ODOT hired a private company to do the work for them. This other company called a contractor, and they typically handle big projects like total rebuilds of highways. The DOT usually handles small projects (like repaving or replacing signs) themselves. However, when a big project is going on, the contractor will typically handle the signs as well. Contractors make errors more often than the DOT, some very bad — while Interstate 44 was being worked on by a contractor, some of the detour signs had U.S. 44 shields. Even when contractors are right, they sometimes don't follow the DOT standards as well as the DOT does. ODOT lets contractors get away with more than other states' DOTs do.

The only way to know for sure whether a is to see the shield up close. ODOT manufactured shields will bear "ODOT 12 05" (for example) in small white letters. This means the shield was manufactured by ODOT in December (the 12th month) of 2005. Often, the back of the shield will have the date of installation written on the back in grease pencil. (Image:Ok66.jpg shows what this datestamp looks like on an Oklahoma highway shield.) There's usually a period of time between the manufacturing dates and the install dates. I'm not 100% sure why this is, but I assume it's easier to make a lot of the same shield at once and then store them until they're needed. It may also have to do with the DOT's priority as to what work to do; things like stop signs are taken care of before guide signs because if a stop sign is missing, it might cause an accident.

I'm not really the best expert on this subject, though. You might want to search or post at MTR, which is a group of many roadgeeks. There are also a few DOT workers that post there that may be able to answer your questions more in-depth than I can. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the 2006 ODOT document was posted to show the new state highway shield. The previous revision was identical, but had the old circular state highway shield instead. As far as I know, Oklahoma has always used state-name shields.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who cares about shields that much? Seriously, you're wasting time obsessing over state neutered shields. Please do something more productive. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You'd have to ask the DOT. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request
You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 07:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maryland Interstate shields
This was a compromise I proposed between people who supported using state-name shields vs. neutered shields. Since Maryland currently doesn't post new signs with the state name most shields used should be neutered, I also argued that small icons should never use the state name since it makes the number appear too small. The reason I said that we should still be using the a state name shield in the route description section was for two reasons: because state-name shields do still exist in Maryland (especially on I-97) and that the shield provides a visual reminder to the reader that the route description is specific to Maryland. This and the discussion after it were where this was discussed.-Jeff (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason I was "ignoring" your question was because I wasn't on last night, people can't be on all the time. As a side note, I know I wouldn't take too kindly to someone if they posted a message like this on my talk page. Please treat other members with more respect.-Jeff (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Another vandalitic from 216.100.95.240
I'd probably issue one more warning, it's a school IP and most likely not the same person. So give a final warning and if he doesn't stop, report him to WP:AIV. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't spot vandalisms, usually other people know before I do. I just look at their talk page to spot the warning they have and their previous contribs. Let me know if he makes another vandalitics, then I will notify admins.-- Freewayguy ( Meet ) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:75.47.x.x
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. -- Evil saltine (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply from EJF - vandals
Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes, you were correct to warn User talk:24.116.252.151 for his vandalism. Normally when a user has vandalised we use a uw-vandalism1, uw-vandalism2, uw-vandalism3 then finally a uw-vandalism4 warning. If the user keeps vandalising after this, we report them to AIV. I am not an administrator, so I cannot personally block users. I do not personally run a bot which reverts vandalism, I use Huggle, which is very useful for removing vandalism and warning vandals. No vandalism from those users at the moment, so hopefully that will have been an end to it! Regards, EJF (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Edits such as this are not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was little frustrate when I thouhgt he would nt answer my question soon enough. I ask somebody to hopefully grant Arkansas state shields, because Arkansas is generally state shields. I dont see Arkansas no longer specifies state shields and their last change of state shield is 2003 or 2004 means it is still current. The specs is tough to find, and Interstate-Guide may sometimes be right, although they may be mistake sometimes. I dont know when user is offline or not because some users make about 70 changes a day. I dont know if they do this for school project or they are 40 year-old stay home dads.-- Freewayguy ( Webmail ) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no deadline. The world will not end tomorrow.  People will answer your questions when they get to them.  No one is on-wiki 24/7 -- we kinda need to sleep sometimes.  Even when we are awake and on-wiki, some of us have priorities and need to do other things first before we get to other editor's concerns.  If you think Arkansas uses state shields -- and uses them often enough to justify us using them in articles instead of a neutered shield -- then you need to find a reliable source that says so.  I understand the specs are tough to find... that's why we're using neutered shields until we find the specs.
 * And whether someone's doing this for a school project, or whether they're a 40-year-old stay-at-home dad, you still don't get to call them an idiot asshole. --  K é iryn talk 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why we upload [[Image:I-405 (OR).svg|25px]], [[Image:I-275 (MI).svg|25px]], they basically uses neutral shields only old ones have specific state name, sometimes, the shield makers stick with prior version of PDR, thats why some neutral shields is actually older than specific state shields. I dont know how to upload images yet, then how come we upload New Mexico state shield and use them in routebox for. I cant even find the specs either, how come we have [[image:I-290 (NY).svg|25px]], I dont understand what's the point?-- Freewayguy ( Webmail ) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by "we" when you ask why we uploaded them. Those shields weren't requested at the shields task force, they weren't uploaded by "us".  They were uploaded by users who thought they'd look cool.  If you look at the bottom of those image pages, they're not used on any articles, and they shouldn't be.  There is no point to them, but since they're on Commons instead of Wikipedia, we can't just send them to WP:IFD, and we can't delete them solely because they're encyclopedic. --  K é iryn  talk 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the images on commons have to be factual?On commons I can't nominate [[Image:I-88 (NY).svg|20px]] for delete. If I do I will just see a blue check-mark says keep. The users can still upload them if they want? Because on commons we can't send them for IFD either. So we can still use them in our personal namespace and talkpages?-- Freewayguy ( Webmail ) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, images on Commons do not have to be factual, they're not part of the encyclopedia. There's a whole category of shields there called Not existing Interstate Highway shields.  I'm not sure what you mean by the second part of your post.  You're more than welcome to nominate an image for deletion on Commons, but it would have to adhere to their deletion policy -- which is different from Wikipedia's deletion policy.  If you "see a blue check mark", all that means is that someone voted to keep the image.  If you want to, you're more than welcome to use any image you want in userspace.  In fact, since they're public domain, people can even use them on personal websites if they want to. --  K é iryn  talk 05:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

State/neutral shields again...

 * Missouri:, page 12. As you can see, MoDOT requires state name shields for independent use and neutered shields for guide sign use.
 * Oklahoma: Trying to understand the reason anything roads-related happens in Oklahoma is probably a waste of time. ODOT and OTA defy logic; there's probably not even anything there to understand. Sometimes there's politics involved. Sometimes they can't even capitalize properly. I would urge you to not worry too much about what makes ODOT tick, lest you get a headache.
 * New Mexico: I know nothing about New Mexico. I've only been to Union County and back. From what I've seen, NMDOT may be even worse than ODOT. If I hadn't known what I was doing, I could have been lost in the desert because of the poor signage.
 * I don't know for sure why sometimes a DOT will put up neutered shields and sometimes they use state-name shields. It could be as simple as one of their employees likes one type of shield and another employee prefers another.
 * I believe every state uses contractors, but some state DOTs seem to require higher quality standards from their contractors than others. Kansas signs are typically very consistent, even when contractors are involved, for instance. I really don't understand what you mean by "anti-contractor" at all.
 * There is no simple answer to which states post which shields, when, and why. Again, I encourage you to post at misc.transport.road, as there are people there that can probably help you much more than I. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)