User talk:Matthh7

Welcome, roadfan!
Hello, Matthh7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:AURD (Australia), WP:CARD (Canada), WP:HKRD (Hong Kong), WP:INRD (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me! If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC. Again, welcome!  Imzadi 1979  →   03:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting
We have a guideline called WP:BRD, which is short for "Bold, revert, discuss". In short, your original addition of the future I-41/I-43/I-894 concurrency was Bold (as our other philosophy says, to be bold in editing), but it was reverted. The next course of action should be to discuss the situation, which is why we have Talk:Concurrency (road), or our user talk pages. The idea is that constantly reverting back and forth with content is a bad thing; in fact we call that edit warring, and it's something you can be blocked from editing for doing.

In this case, Concurrency (road) has been overrun over the years with too many examples. We've been trying to keep the article easy to read by using a single example in most cases. The fact that there are only two 3-way Interstate concurrencies means each is very rare, and it's ok to put both together earlier in the article. However, your last variation of the content lower in the article was very poorly worded, and it wasn't necessary to illustrate the concept that a concurrency could involve three directions. (We're still looking for a case with four, and if found, the three-way one would be removed.)  Imzadi 1979  →   03:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think my example of a three dimensional triple interstate concurrence is better than the existing one. I didn't wanted to delete their example even though I believe mine is better, because it is three interstates rather than three basic highways.  Also, it was just elaborating on an existing example by making it better.  This article is already full of examples, my addition was small and not really noticeable, but still relevant. If I just made another example of a three directional concurrence using another set of basic highways I could see where you're coming from, but this was unique, and with my second edit I attached to the above example instead of adding another independent one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthh7 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing magical about Interstates that makes I-41/I-43/I-894 any better than US 20/IL 47/IL 72. The one already illustrates how a driver could be on a southbound roadway that carries two more different signed directions at the same time.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just thought that it was worth mentioning because it is the occurrence of two rare events. Having a triple interstate concurrence is rare, it is also rare to have a three-directional concurrency, which is why I thought this was a good example because it an occurrence of two rare events. I didn't mean to say that interstates are magically better than regular highways, or to belittle the existing example, I just wanted to add something constructive and different.Matthh7 (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)matthh7