User talk:Moabdave/Archive 4

To all who participated in my RfA: I would like to thank you, regardless of how you voted. While it got ugly, I learned a lot from it. Due to the fact that some people are upset at how the closing of the RfA was handled, I have decided not to send a "thank spam" message. I have thought about this, and decided that sending one might re-ignite passions that are just now starting to die down. If you were hoping for one, please accept my apologies. Dave (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

NY 317's ACR needs checking
I finished everything you asked about, and I put the history you wanted in :). Hopefully I can get your support. Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 14:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done again. Re-review? Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dave. I think I took care of all of your latest concerns over at the NY 317 ACR as part of a copyedit of the entire article. Feel free to give the article another look. –  T M F 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally...
Another week or so and it would've been 2 months since I nominated Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula for FA. I wonder what the longest nom ever was, I think I came close. I must say the article has vastly improved thanks to dilligent reviewers. I've been working on DDSB, but running into trouble on the history section. Worse yet, I have yet to find any "scenic byway" articles which exhibit any sort of consistency regarding the history. I'm wondering if it is necessary to list the history of each road... whether I should only list the history of the portion of the road which is included within the scenic designation (which would be a chore to sort out)... or if I should just point the reader to the respective articles and not say anything about it. So far I'm going with the most difficult route, as I'm sure thats what reviewers will be expecting. I've already nominated it for GA, I doubt it will pass, but at least perhaps I can draw some attention to the article and see what others think. I would've submitted it for PR but it always seems like reviewers pay less attention to PR. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks for your comments on Nevada State Route 375. The article passed GA today. --LJ (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stumbled onto a source you might could use
Thanks! I added it back in. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

News-Miner GAN
Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed the pressing concerns, and I'm going to take care of the recommendations as well, but I thought you'd want to know when I fixed the needed items. I'll grab a picture as soon as I can, and will continue to work on the article. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote discussion
Hey Dave. I thought you might want to take a look at this discussion at the USRD Standards page, since you started the initial discussion at USRD and wrote the revised standard. It's about the "This is a state-detail article..." hatnote used at US 50 (NV) and other places. Regards. --LJ (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response
Hi Davemeistermoab, I only came to help restore county columns to show county abbreviations in CASH articles. The major cities? Well I thought that all freeways needed to have 'em, as there is going to be a source for all these. If the county columns are a bother, please bring up a discussion about it if needed, and I'll cease any such further activity on that until discussion is resolved. Mgillfr (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll just not add anymore control boxes. You guys might come up with a better way for these boxes. Thanks, Davemeistermoab. Mgillfr (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA/my notability question
I wanted to take the time to personally say thank you for your reasoned response to my query. I wasn't looking for any specific answer, but rather the ability to offer a thoughtful answer and I must say you passed with flying colors. I hope your RfA succeeds.

The only advice I would offer (and this is unrelated to your RfA, thus why it is posted here) is to always keep in mind the merge/redirect option. I personally do a lot of proposed deletion patrolling and find that quite often the best for dealing with topics of minor notability (such as fictional characters, individual albums by minor bands, consumer products, etc.) is to merge them into more general articles with a redirect. This way the content is preserved without "clogging the Encyclopedia" with needless articles. (It also discourages the recreation of the article by an inexperienced editor who doesn't realize the subject is already covered elsewhere.) For example, Loretta Brown redirects to List of characters in Family Guy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. Yes I will keep that in mind, thanks for the advice.Dave (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Did not expect this RFA turn into a steamroller - it might be well over by now, but you did good under fire. Cheers, NVO (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My only regret is that I rushed to answer the serious charges made in the first day. My rushed responses made my non-perfect writing skills look even worse. But I can't unring a bell, so I'll just let the chips fall where they may.Dave (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. RfA can be a bit of a crapshoot, but hopefully you can take away some helpful suggestions and some encouragement from the dozens of editors who chose to support your cnadidacy. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well. Yes, I am impressed with the character, humility, and integrity some people have shown in this process. There are a couple in particular that I hope to learn from.Dave (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Overlap postmiles on California State Route 78
On the junction list, I combined my new ideas with 's ideas in order to format the overlap postmiles (in this case SR 86) in a way that may be a lot clearer to you and others. I hope you like this change; it should prevent you from reading it as 86X.XX. Mgillfr (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the way you did the footnotes. I have two suggestions. I wouldn't put the note about mileposts along CA-78 in the column header. That implies ALL mileposts are derived from CA-78, when in reality it's only 3. Second, I know you disagree, but the "Old highway 111 is former SR-111" really should go.Dave (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, just say "Former SR 111". (For the record, in California you don't include the hyphen in a state route. It's SR 111, not SR-111.) For the note about the mileposts, since you say it shouldn't be put up there in the column header, where do you want to put it? The note ref tag has to go somewhere (I can't just make it disappear). Mgillfr (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of options. One would be to re-word the note (again) to say something like "Mileposts referenced with the superscript 86 are derived from SR-86". Another would be to move the note text outside the table. The other is to revert to the refgroup formatting as before and just call the group "86". U.S. Route 50 in Nevada does it this way with the county footnotes.Dave (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Problems here: for your first suggestion, there are already notes that say it similar at the bottom of the list. For your second, where would you place the note text if it were to be outside the table? Fore your third: if we revert it, we'll see it as [86 1] as a superscript, in which case there'd be trouble if we tried to disambiguate to multiple overlaps. I feel as though my method is the best way to fit all CASH articles; see how I did it to California State Route 49. Mgillfr (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to start a discussion on WT:CASH about this very subject. Frankly all of the California Highway road articles (with very few exceptions) are so trashed, in all seriousness it might be better to burn the project to the ground and start over.Dave (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Burn the project? Then we'd start worse than where we are right now. It's just that no one's doing anything in terms of expanding CASH articles. I just don't agree with all of your suggestions, because it's really hard to get around with the technical formatting of wiki. Mgillfr (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 395 in California
Another concern: while I appreciate your hard work and efforts on the article, I worry about your referencing. The only problem is that you link to a few sites where it's hard to extract the information. For example, what do you get out from this reference? Mgillfr (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I get out of it that the origins of Victorville begin with the Sante Fe railroad, who founded a town along the Mojave River, which became later known for George Airforce base. If you read the source really carefully, you'll see big bold letters with the words "City History" followed by the subtext "Learn how Victorville got its name, and how it has developed over time."Dave (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I believe you should link directly to that page. Isn't it curteous to make the source accessible? Mgillfr (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I would say the rule should be link to what is most helpful. In this case we have a main article with four or five sub-articles. In this instance, if somebody truly wanted more information on Victorville, the main article provides the most value. Your argument could be equally valid. Either way, it's not worth redoing the article.Dave (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Dave - congratulations, you're an administrator. Use the tools prudently. I'm sure you've been mulling over the remarks in the 'oppose' section all week, and I trust you will take them seriously in future article work. Happy editing. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. You should check out New Admin School if you haven't already. Plastikspork (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you, and thank you. For all reading this, due to the unique circumstances surrounding this, I'm honestly not sure if the semi-traditional thank-spam is appropriate. Give me some time to think about it. If you were hoping for one, please accept my apologies.Dave (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC);

A definite congrats over on this end :) CL (T · C) — 07:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't participate - must have missed it, but congratulations :D weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  08:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I can't figure out how you missed it, best 4th of July fireworks around.Dave (talk)

Wow, I didn't think you would pass. Congratulations! :D Yeah, our RfAs were kind of similar, but I think we've both learned from our mistakes. :)  The left orium  09:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I was looking for Lazarus. But while I'm here, gratz! - Dank (push to talk) 11:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one! Thanks!Dave (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW. This is unbelievable. Congratulations man on becoming 7th U.S. Roads admin!Mitch/HC32 12:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, although I wasn't aware there was a count of admins by project.Dave (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

now do us credit! go slow, & the inevitable mistakes won't happen all at once. DGG (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I shall do my best.Dave (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats on your adminship for life! No one can stop you now. Have fun! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, but thanks for the compliment.Dave (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the ranks. You can ask me a question anytime you want. Chillum  00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Dave (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RFA passing. I do have one request. Please get more experience with files on Wikipedia before performing admin actions on them.--Rockfang (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had planned to initially assist in the moving images to commons process. However, your point is duly noted. No need to be scared of me, I do make an effort to work with others and learn from them.Dave (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on my talk page - No problem; I'm just (as they say) doing my job. I am sorry you were caught in this mess, but in the meantime I trust you'll do some substantive good to the project by learning how to use your admin tools and getting to work on all the boring busy-work you've signed up for. :-) Cheers &mdash; Dan | talk 21:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You mean I asked for this? =-)Dave (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I know you'll make good use of the tools! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I never knew Utah looked so much like the UK =-) Dave (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly want to congratulate you for surviving your RfA experience. I have passed some things to Julian to tell you. I wish you luck and I hope that the project benefits from you as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would like to say a few words, you're free to do so on this page. Cheers.Dave (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was mostly just some advice and whatever else. Nothing big. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. Given the caliber of advice given here, here and here I shall seek advice elsewhere. Please remember to be civil, and have a nice day. Dave (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really know how to make someone regret not complaining about a major violation by a Bureaucrat that would have the effect of removing your adminship. That was really, really uncalled for. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Davemeistermoab, I disagree with Dan, but I supported your RFA. WP is a collaborative project, so perfection is not required here. Good luck, and use the admin tools to ameliorate en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. FWIW, I think Dan was in a tough spot, and few are in a position to judge. I would not have faulted him, even if he chose differently.Dave (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Utah State Route 143
If/when the fallout settles, you may be better placed than most to comment on this RFF request. – iride  scent  21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have given some feedback.Dave (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Made some changes and noted them on the RFF request. If you have a few minutes, could you check it out and let me know how it's going? Thanks. DeFaultRyan 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX   ₪  04:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Golden State Freeway
In regards to your comments in the merge discussion, I've added an "Early history" section to this article which is specifically about the Golden State Freeway. There's a lot more to do, but it's a start and the content would be inappropriate for the Interstate 5 article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good start, thanks for the addition. I have opined further on the talk page for the article.Dave (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 266
Thank you for your review on SR 266. I'll look into it while I have the time. I admit, I'm not that good with history sections of roads. Also, please bear with me though as I am busy this week (my user page will explain why), so further improvements from me may have to wait if needed. You should come in and add new stuff if you want (or even rewrite over my writing) ... after all Wikipedia is collaborative effort. Mgillfr (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. My wikipedia time right now is spent trying to finish up some over due work on an A Class nomination. once that's over I might work on this.Dave (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Response
Google Maps explicity says "Aerospace Highway" on SR 14. Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google maps also shows CA-170 routed over Cahuenga Pass, doesn't mean I believe it. Google maps has it's uses, but should NEVER, EVER, EVER be a primary source for an article. It's good for things like measuring distance, getting geolocation co-ordinates, etc. but the map itself isn't very good, it's full of errors, inaccuracies, and outdated information. Regardless, wikipedia governs by consensus, and nobody voted to keep it. Also, the impression I got from the last time you and I discussed this is that you were in agreement that legislative names that are not in common use should be mentioned, but not lead or infobox material.. Cheers. Dave (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agreed in the past, but Google Maps proved otherwise when I checked it myself. I just don't get how Google Maps is full of problems. Additionally, editors have criticized Google Maps just because it lables route numbers in wrong places when those were indeed former routings in the first place. How can I be convinced that Google Maps is full of problems? Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus governs on wikipedia. To your other point, how can you argue Google Maps is suitable for this? I've used Google Maps; I agree it has a purpose. Just skimming the CA-14 corridor along google maps I immediately saw several errors, given time I'm sure I could find more. Examples: Google shows an old routing of CA-126 through Santa Clarity as still active. Google shows two active routings of CA-58 through Mojave. Google has railroad sidings near Mojave mislabeled as towns. Google has a campground in a state park labeled as if it were a town. Google does not have the long completed California City exit shown. Perhaps the most incredible, Google Maps shows a railroad line as still active that was ripped up in 1959. (the wikipedia article has a source for this) Again, it should NEVER be the primary source, however, it is ok for certain details and supporting evidence. I know several wikipedia editors do misuse google maps, and I try to call this out when I see it.


 * Also, I do not see CA-14 labeled as Aerospace highway, please provide the link. The names I see used are Antelope Valley Freeway and Midland Trail. Nobody disputes those. Dave (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SR 170 actually does go over Cahuenga Pass; the south end, however, is at SR 2, not Melrose Avenue. --NE2 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the correction. While I had that wrong, the point still stands. It is trivially easy to find inaccuracies in Google Maps, as such it should not be the primary source.Dave (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
No problem man happy to help, the tracing could have been better like the other maps but I'm a rookie at this I'm still learning :-).— J A  10  Talk • Contribs 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Content deletion
Maybe not, but he was removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to undo my change then, its late, I should know better than to edit this late at night. I tried to tell Howchang that he uploaded a copyvio on commons before I realized that the ToU of the images specifically said reuse was allowed with no restrictions... --Admrboltz (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I undid your change. No worries, done that a few times myself. Dave (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Santa Anita depot
Thank you for adding this into the history; I was about to do it. Sometimes people are a little too quick to revert... --NE2 04:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yeah I wasn't sure what to make if it. It certainly doesn't deserve to be a level2 heading, but it's worth a mention. I knew that the old ATSF line ran through the median of I-210 for a good 3 miles. I figured, this is certainly plausible. It didn't take long to confirm it.Dave (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! There are more information on it. Have no time to do it now. Yes, people just love to delete fast like they know everything, including someone from N.Y. It is an important landmark. Movies were filmed there, including the movie with Dyan Cannon, and directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in early 1990s. One day I may post a pic. Bband11th (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Colorado
I must say, if all of your articles were like the above - straight forward, strong use of sources that are directly pertinent, and relying in rather pertinent information - then the roads projects would have a lot of great articles. I think that once the concerns of others are met, the article would be a strong model for people to follow. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Ottava - this was easily the best road article I've read; the prose flowed very well and it was quite interesting. I mistimed my second round of promotions today, so the bot has already run.  Although the article is now officially a featured article, it won't get its star or its article history updated until this weekend; please don't remove the FAC template on the talk page - the bot will get it this weekend.  Thanks for providing such quality content! Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Gimmetrow is way ahead of me today and just reran the bot. Your article should now have its star :) Karanacs (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the bot updates on my watchlist. I feel this is in order:
 * Thanks everybody, thanks. I need to pass out a few barnstars myself now.Dave (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK got started, but dang am I tired. I'll finish later.Dave (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the barnstar. I have pretty much been on wikibreak lately, haven't been doing much. Although I have taken some new photos which have proven useful in articles, and a nice panorama from the top of this lighthouse. After spotting a green lynx spider, I became intrigued with arachnids for a while. So how is the admin thing working out for you? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, you earned it. Your pictures really added to the article. Work is making sure I don't spend that much time at home these days. I was doing quite a bit of globetrotting for about 3-4 weeks. Last night I enjoyed a nice evening on my couch with my remote control for the first time since August. So during that time, I basically was lucky if I could log in every 3-4 days or so and fix the stuff people would find in the FAC nomination. As you can see from my replies, I-70 passed FA for 3 full days before I knew about it =-). Anyways, things are back to normal now.  I haven't used the admin bit that much, maybe now that things have calmed down I'll start blocking random users to see how this stuff all works =-) Seriously, I never really sought out to be an admin. I ran after multiple friends who are admins started dropping hints that if I ran, I wouldn't need to pester them for favors as often =-). They thought I'd have a chance; so I said what the hell, I'll give it a shot. So far I've just helped work some of the backlogged WP:CSD and other stuff on a slow day, I haven't done any admin stuff full time.
 * I think you'd make a good admin if you want to run. Fair warning, you get to see the dark side of wikipedia. There's a war brewing between the academic worker bees and the academic elitist snobs. Running for Admin is where you get to be a part of it. Dave (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I have this userbox on my userpage. Right after you ran, someone asked me if I wanted to run. I'm sure I could handle the criticism, but I'd rather focus on editing and creating new articles. I did some hellacious work on Hawaii hotspot (even made a new graphic for it) but failed FA due mostly to a lack of interest. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gave it a quick scan. Looks good. Right now I'm still suffering from jet lag from jumping across so many time zones. I can stay focused for about 4 hours and then zonk, I'm gone. (Had to give a presentation to my boss today, that was rough). But anyways, give me a couple of days for this to wear off, and I'll happily take a look. For sure, let me know if you nominate it again.Dave (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence
I wasn't aware of your RfA. Now it's clear that the disruption is going to end soon, I really enjoyed reading this travesty.

I noticed one detail: You are quoting OR as referring to the "legendary people I studied under", but it's clear that OR only used this outrageous formulation because FeyHuxtable started with "DGG studied under the legendary Gunther Stent at Berkley". I don't think it makes sense to establish this context in your evidence section, so it's best to leave the quotation out for fairness. There is enough criticism of OR in your and other people's evidence that is 100% fair and unambiguous. Hans Adler 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I have gone back and added a note to clarify the context. I see your point, and debated striking the quote for the reasons you state. However, I do think the quote does provide insight and value to the debate.Dave (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From Mapsax
Please see here regarding your message to me. Mapsax (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Crap, sorry
I didn't see there was a redirect. I thought I was editing for PR. --Fredddie™ 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps as a source
I think your essay User:Davemeistermoab/maps is great, but seems to be missing one point. Sometimes (especially on road articles), a long detailed route description will be based on a map source alone. This recently happened here. In such case, the editor has a lot of freedom to choose which features along the route to highlight, which I'm concerned may constitute original research. Should this be added to the essay? Offliner (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree. I would even go a step further and say it is not appropriate to use a single map as a source, for that very reason. If only one map can be used to source a fact, then it is most likely not notable. You're free to update the essay if you wish, or give me enough time and I'll do it =-). Dave (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not based on Bing anymore alone, and this is a major freeway, not like its been made unnotable.Mitch</FONT>32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot FAC
Your review comments have been adressed. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 01:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I forgot about this. I'll get back on it. Dave (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: SR-201 GAC
Of course I don't mind at all. The Stober source has a chance of being thrown out anyway so what you did is probably necessary. Thank you though. I remember discussing over email way back when about SR-201 being a GA one day; it's about time Utah's most prominent state route gets the honor. And a problem a lot of roads articles here have is that they're not readable to the general public at all, especially in regards to history. Taking a break from the project has aided me in that regard, I think. We'll see how the GA goes. Once it passes, you can display the userbox saying you helped, because if it wasn't for your maps the history section would be woefully lacking. CL (T · C) — 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you.Dave (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps as main source
I'm in total agreement with you on this issue, Dave. I've been improving various Nevada State Route articles. As you know, Nevada doesn't have much in the way of historical sources about its highway system available online...not like Utah, where the state has all its legislative route changes online in easily accessible format. For Nevada, the only resources readily available are maps. I have found some older documents at the UNR library, but using those and finding other offline material for most NVSRs will take a considerable amount of time and effort. My main goal with Nevada right now is to reduce the stub count so that there's more context than the one-sentence route log entry stolen from AARoads. Due to the sourcing issue, I'm currently using primarily maps to improve the articles and fill out the "big three" to the best of my ability. When done, I reassess the article to C-Class, and move on. This way, there's at least some tangible information there and I've eliminated a stub. I probably could bump these assessments to B-Class based on the current quality scale, but I don't feel the articles would pass GA, so I don't do that...I wish other editors would share that mentality... --LJ (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't picking on you; however, I did have a few other people in mind when I made that comment. I think you've done a great job. I'm well aware the historical map section is going to be the only source available, for obscure NV state routes. I have no problem with using that for article creation and or expansion. My comments were more directed at those who submit articles as a Good Article Candidates where the route description is based solely on an online map, and the history is just comparing historical maps to current. It sounds like we agree that that does not make a good article.
 * About UDOT's website verses NDOT's website; It's an interesting difference. UDOT does not make any historical maps available, but does offer the legislative changes and milepost logs on-line. Nevada has historical maps on-line, but little else. From my experience, making Utah highway articles is much easier. I had started on a few articles for Nevada state routes, and gave up in frustration. It would be nice if we could get their IT departments to compare notes and both states have both types of information available. It's wishful thinking given the current economic client, but were that to happen we could have a solid B class article for every NV and UT highway in a couple of months.Dave (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you weren't picking on me...although I have an idea as to a couple of the editors you may be referring to. Just wanted to let you know that others share your sentiment. For me, it's about expanding the articles the best I can while sticking to the quality guidelines, not jockeying for position on the "leaderboard"--I would love to see Nevada's wikiwork fall below '5.0', though.
 * I do wish NDOT would have more of roadgeek-type info available online. Nevada routes haven't been written in law since the 1976 renumbering, and I don't think the board of directors decides route changes, so such info isn't publicly available. However, NDOT has been making an effort to improve what information they do publish online. The area/quad maps are gradually being redrawn (some are still from the 80's). Their 2008 milepost book was a vast improvement over the old milepost maps. That book was incorporated into the most recent state maintained highways book (which I just saw for the first time today), which now has far more detailed maps and, in many cases, more descriptive location references. All this is nothing like having a milepost log or a straight line diagram to work from, but it's steps in the right direction. --LJ (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Your picture inspired me to write Wilson Canyon, I will likely put it up for DYK have put it up for DYK, along with your picture. As I am leaving Nevada soon, I am going to miss driving through it. Cheers.
 * Why thank you. That is a very nice compliment. Good luck with the DYK nomination and hope all goes well with the move.Dave (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thistle, Utah
Hello! Your submission of Thistle, Utah at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ponce, Puerto Rico
I won´t be able to work on the page for the time being. If you close the nomination, please keep the review on the "TALK" page. Thanks so much for all your work. It is greatly apreciated and will serve me or whoever in the future. --Coquidragon (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010!
We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rschen7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I-70 Business Stuff
Say, couldn't there just be an article like "List of business routes of Interstate 70 in Colorado"? When I did the merge, I had nowhere to put the information, so I moved it to the I-70 page. (See what Imzadi1979 did to my article on U.S. Route 34 in Colorado about business loops). But here, there are more business routes. Besides, when I did the merge, I couldn't get the right shield to appear on the. That's why the infobox was so long. Should there be a list of business routes or should I undo my edits and put the Grand Junction business loop back? (I happen to note, there is another business route of I-70 with an article lurking out there; I think it's for Denver. --<font color="IIJJ3400">Pzoxicuvybtnrm  23:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is another article (Interstate 70 Business (Denver, Colorado)). --<font color="IIJJ3400">Pzoxicuvybtnrm  23:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't exactly say "article". It's so short it might not make a difference. --<font color="IIJJ3400">Pzoxicuvybtnrm  23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just in case either of you needs to know, the "type" for an Interstate Business Loop is "BL", and for an Interstate Business Spur, it is "BS". I edited the I-70 page to use infobox road small using the correct type code. I had to created the subtemplate needed for the name, but it is working now. If you wanted my opinion, if there's only the GJ and Denver loops, I'd merge both into the article. If there are any more, split them off into a separate list, either combined with all other I-70 BL/BS designations nationally, or in a CO-only list depending on total numbers by state. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)