User talk:Lpangelrob/Archive 3

hey
Hey Rob, I hope I-355 is doing ok, looks like there's a bit of work still before it passes, good luck with that. I managed to get two pictures from flickr and I created a commons category for the article. I switched some pics around after I added this one, I hope I didn't mess anything up in the article. Anyways good luck with the article. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I-355
Here's an interesting fact I found: it was "unofficially" known as I-455: and this appeared on some maps:  It appears ISTHA originally chose I-355 in late 1987 or early 1988, but the FHWA told them that since it connected two Interstates it would be I-455: Daniel Cuhry, Daily Herald, Numbers Game Keeps Tollway Nameless, July 30, 1988
 * Even though it hasn't opened yet, DuPage County's new tollway is having a minor identity crisis. Transportation moguls can't decide on the pay road's full name. Memos are flying between various transportation agencies over the new road's number designation. Should it be I-355 or I-455? Is this a question for the great interstate czar in the sky?
 * Several years ago officials finally agreed on North-South Tollway as the name of the road which extends Route 53 south through DuPage County to I-55. Scheduled opening is late 1989. Six months ago Illinois State Toll Highway Authority officials began adding I-355 to the title. That was fine until recently when the toll authority received a letter from the Federal Highway Administration [making?] a change to I-455. It seems the federal policy for numbering interstates requires roads connecting two other interstate highways to begin with an even number. That argument doesn't wash with Illinois Department of Transportation spokesman Carl F. Kowalski, who claims the new tollway more closely resembles a spur, which is like of an interstate, which under federal policy should have an odd first digit. Kowalski is so convinced he's right that IDOT is sending the FHA a letter asking the road be allowed to remain I-355. A final decision hasn't been made. As for Thomas G. Morsch Jr., executive director of the toll authority, he doesn't care. Morsch is someone who remembers the road was first tagged FAP 431 in the 1960s when it was envisioned as a freeway. And he recalls there was a proposal in Springfield two years ago to rename the toll road after state Senate Republican leader James Pate Philip. "It really doesn't matter," says Morsch. "All I care about now is building the road and putting cars on it. We can figure out a name later."

--NE2 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is the whole article above, or at least the important part. Searching for the end of a sentence usually gives you the beginning of the next, and so on. --NE2 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting it to featured article status. --NE2 11:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

James Philip
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Circle Interchange
I notified Speciate about the change you made that he reverted, asking him to provide a source for that statement. Just to let you know. This way we steer clear of 3RR stuff. :) —  master son T - C 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please ask Propol stop his personal attack
This garbage will only poison the discussion and cause trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointoflight (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 355

 * Why - the I-Pass don't work? ;) —  master son T - C 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I-355 Map
Hey hey. Does this map still need to be worked on? It looks alright to me. I'm not clear on what is requested on the MTF Requests page.  S tratosphere (U T) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Congrats on the FA, btw :)  S tratosphere (U T) 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem man glad to help, congrats on the FA. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting the article passed! --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mirth & Girth
I applaud the new article, but I am not sure that all mention of it need to be removed from the Harold Washington article. It does relate to the subject. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I missed that. Perhaps a link to the main article is called for. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. It seemed to me a move by others to scrub the article of any mention. I apologize for the inference. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Poplar Street Bridge
Federally, Interstate 44 is on the bridge. It should be added. Would you like me to provide a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodo920 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I also did a map route and it adds 2 miles to the route in Missouri.  I'm going to wait before I make that change on the I-44 in MO page.  See if I can get more info.Bodo920 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FHWA says that I-44 runs 290.xx miles in Missouri, which means it would end at the I-55 jct, according to mapping. However, it also says that it is concurrent with I-55 for 1 mile, which would be inconsistent with the 290.xx number.  I sent off an email with hopes of further info.Bodo920 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — O  bot  (t • c) 03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User WikiProject U.S. Highways
A tag has been placed on Template:User WikiProject U.S. Highways requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exit lists
I don't think there's been any discussion. To me it makes sense to put them with the highway name, since that's the article that describes the details of the road, and is where readers are more likely to want to refer to the exit list when reading about the road. --NE2 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that that's how it's been done on Schuylkill Expressway for a while. --NE2 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

M-28 GA
Thanks for reviewing the article. I fixed that caption and reworked the one quote. I'm puzzled about your comments re: Seney Stretch though. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made some edits with some feedback from other edits. I'm curious to know if they pass your review now? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks ok for now. Thanks. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

USS Bridgeport (AD-10) GA review
Thanks for taking the time to perform the GA review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10). I've made changes based on your remarks and noted them on the article’s talk page. I also had a question about non-breaking spaces for dates that I posed there. Thanks again. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I was not aware of the date thing. Now I believe that I have addressed everything you noted in your review. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your time in performing the GA review. The article has now passed an A-class review at the Military History Wikiproject, and I would like to make nominate it for FA consideration. Could I prevail upon you to update the GA review section to reflect the promotion? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lake Street (Chicago)
Would you mind taking a look at Lake Street (Chicago) and cleaning up the refs that you added?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

CA-16
Just so you know, after Friday I'll be in Costa Rica until the 26th, so if you hold the article, it may be a while before I can respond. :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review
I didn't know if you had forgotten about hours of service or not, its been a while since I've heard from you and the article is still on hold. I've made vast improvements and I think you'll like them, I know you're probably busy so when you get a chance please let me know whats going on. Thanks! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — О  бот  (т • ц) 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail
Also, I've made some comments at CA-20. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

3 Things for you....
Davemeistermoab (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you for your GA review of Utah State Route 128. I agree with your feedback and will begin making the changes. I'll advise when they are done.
 * 2) I have my first article in A class review Interstate 70 in Utah. To say the least it has been a learning experience.  There are things in the SR-128 article, that I now know aren't kosher, because of what I've learned at ACR. If you don't mind I'll fix those also.
 * 3) Speaking of A class articles. One of the feedback items I have from the ACR is that I am missing some of the construction costs for I-70 in Utah. I have searched hard for these and have found some, but not all. I was told you may know of some good ways to find this data from your work on I-355 (congrats on the FA, BTW). Please advise if you can lend a hand. Thanks
 * I have responded to all your comments. Thanks again. Also, I made other changes based on things I have since learned from other articles in a review process. Please advise if you feel any of these changes were inappropriate.Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Again. Regarding your response to item 3. The newsbank site is exactly where I found the construction figures listed. I'm wondering if its enough. I have listed the construction costs for the San Rafael Portion, which frankly is the part that makes this freeway notable. I'm hoping I'm not going to get flak for not having the construction costs for the less notable segments too. Thanks for the review.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Thanks for adding the Wacker Drive Map. Prairie Avenue, Historic Michigan Boulevard District,  Borman Expressway and  Rush Street (Chicago) could use maps if you know how to create them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Conversions at Diolkos
Thanks for helping with the conversions at Diolkos. Is there any way to abbreviate the "kilometres" to "km" in formulas of the type 6 km ? The repeated "kilometres" comes across a bit annoying to the reader. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

California State Route 160
All issues have been addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

NY 376
Hi. Most of your concerns on NY 376's GAN have been addressed by either myself or another editor, but I'm not sure what hinders it passing. Would you consider taking another look before time runs out? Thanks, Juliancolton The storm still blows...  01:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Highways 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. No formal enforcement measures are being proposed at this time, in light of the hope that editors will act of their own volition and take with them a more in-depth understanding of the issues, principles, and the disputes themselves, for future benefit and to avoid the need for more formal responses; in particular, all members of WikiProject U.S. Roads are advised that when asserting the existence of a prior consensus, it is necessary to refer to prior discussions or debates on Wikipedia where that consensus has been established.

&mdash; Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dewey Bridge
Thanks for professionalizing the anon's edits. Wow, I'm speechless. What a waste, was a beautiful bridge that survived over 100 years of floods, termites, etc. to end like that. I just hope the kids parents spearhead a reconstruction effort to make amends.Davemeistermoab (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mirth & Girth
Just read it from the list of GA candidates. Fascinating topic, excellent article. Good luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barlow Road
I've addressed the issues you raised in Barlow Road about the best they can be. I left a few notes on the talk page. —EncMstr 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sde Dov Airport
I've made all the changes for Sde Dov apart from I couldnt find more info for the Hebrew University source or an alternative yet to Airports Worldwide. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA review and pass Rob. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

History of hang gliding
I cannot thank you enough for your review and feedback on the article entitled History of hang gliding. Your feedback is very precise and opens many possibilities to improve and conform the article. I predict the process will take significant time as we have to reach agreement between the 3 main editors, but having your feedback now posted on the talk page gives me the direction and tools to guide them and guide myself. There is subtle and controlled tension (not quite a war of edits) between us 3 editors regarding a very specific point: the difference between invention, development and application of the Rogallo Wing on hang gliders, as well as what was more influential; and each of us has tried to document his point with acompanying images.

One of us has resorted to vandalism and insults so has been temporarly banned and after several months, back at it with legal threats. I consider myself the buffer of all 3 but I am aware that I do have my own assesment and understanding of the history and I am trying to make the other two gain a perspectve of the developments in the CONTEXT they happened. I don't want to Shangai them and I'd like to work it out slowly and transform the article gradually as we reach consensus (or at least tolerance) on the wording so don't hold your breath, I will likely re-submit it for again in about one year. Can we remove from "Good Article" candidate for now? Thank you! BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks again for your review of my 2 most recent GA nominations. You've been going to town with reviewing articles lately. It is appreciated. For the record, I've been trying to chip in also, I did do one GA review but was then asked (more like pleaded =-) ) to help with the backlog of A class nominations at WP:USRD. I don't exactly feel qualified, as I'm still learning about what it takes to write a GA, but I'm doing what I can. =-)

Thanks also for your patience. I'm constantly amazed how I think I've got an article in perfect shape, until somebody else looks at it. =-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Road GA reviews
First off, thanks for taking on the daunting task of eliminating the Transport GAN backlog. I've found your reviews to be fair and complete, and I hope I haven't left a bad impression with some of my followup comments on various articles (for the record, all of them have been on my watchlist and I'm the type that if I see something that I'm not quite clear on or if I disagree with it, I comment). As an aside, in the past few days, I drew up this page, depicting what I believe are things to watch for in New York road articles before nominating them for Good Article status. Now, I know that some of those probably aren't applicable across the board (like the map and history lines), but perhaps the presence of maintenance information, the lack of a "communities box", and referenced mileposts in junction tables should be requirements for GA status. Just an idea; feel free to discard it or act on it as you prefer.

In any event, I've addressed your concerns over on NY 394. –  T M F 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)