User talk:NE2/Archive 13

Help me out here.
I'll be honest with you. I couldn't possibly care less what the result of the discussion is. I just want there to be a result. What exactly is it that you want, and how far are you willing to compromise? --  K é iryn talk 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be a consistent scope for the assessment categories that's not based on what the members currently care about. --NE2 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. Of course the scope of a WikiProject is based on what the members care about.  How could it possibly be any other way? --  K é iryn  talk 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should and hopefully will happen. --NE2 16:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. Wikipedia isn't a job, it's a hobby.  We edit certain articles because those are the articles we're interested in.  We create WikiProjects to collaborate on certain articles because those are the articles we're interested in.  Once you force us to put articles on our to-do list that we're not interested in, Wikipedia isn't a fun hobby anymore, it's a stressful never-ending job.  --  K é iryn  talk 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Make your own to-do list if you must. --NE2 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have. --  K é iryn talk 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the issue then? --NE2 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With me, there's no issue. Like I said, I couldn't possibly care less what the result of the discussion is.  But if we change the project's scope to include articles people aren't interested in, then you're forcing them to collaborate on articles they're not interested in, which just isn't going to work.  Or, if you claim you're not forcing them because they can all make their own to-do lists, then what's the point?  If they all have their own to-do lists, what's the point of having a project to-do list that no one's going to follow? --  K é iryn  talk 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If people want a nice project to-do list, they can use the bot-generated table and sort by importance. --NE2 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how to create the project to-do list, thanks. But people aren't going to care about that list if there's a bunch of articles on it that they think aren't supposed to be in their project. --  K é iryn  talk 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you reading what I'm saying? If you sort by importance, unimportant articles, including most streets, go to the bottom. --NE2 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So if they're always going to be at the bottom, and no one's going to work on them anyway, what's the point of having them there at all? --  K é iryn talk 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because people do work on them, or they wouldn't exist in the first place. --NE2 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * People, yes. State subproject members, 99% of the time, no. --  K é iryn  talk 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All that membership consists of is putting your name on a list. --NE2 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, and they put their name on that list because a project has a certain scope, and that scope matches with what they're interested in editing. --  K é iryn talk 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

←If you expand the scope and tag the articles, people that edit those articles will come to the project and sign up. --Holderca1talk 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but is that what the original members of the project signed on for? --  K é iryn talk 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What did the original members of Wikipedia sign on for? Probably nothing as bureaucratic as it is today. We need to look at the present, not dwell on the past. --NE2 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with NE2 on this, take a look at a project like WikiProject California, do you think all the editors there want to edit everything and anything to do with California? Of course not, so why should it be any different here? There are editors within USRD that are interested in streets, bridges, etc... not just highways. So therefore shouldn't we add it to the scope of USRD? --Holderca1talk 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To the scope of USRD, sure. I think everyone already agreed to that.  To the scope of state wiki-projects and state assessment categories, no.  (Except in Texas. :-P) --  K é iryn  talk 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote, "you win by attrition." Except I'll concede that you make a lot of really good points, and in the long run, this isn't worth fighting over. I'm done making the other side's arguments for them. I'm just going to sit back for a bit and see what plays out once the "major players" get back from work/school/whereever they are right now. --  K é iryn talk 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

840 and Nashville
Hey there, I see you added back Category:Transportation in Nashville, Tennessee to Tennessee State Route 840. Frankly, your edit summary makes no sense...yes, it affects traffic in and around Nashville, but it also affects traffic in certain ways to all the cities and towns in the state, as all major interstates and highways do nationwide. The category is normally intended for those items that are actually in the city. It isn't a big deal, but I prefer accuracy, and to me this is like putting Murfreesboro, Tennessee inside Category:Nashville, Tennessee or Category:Davidson County, Tennessee because "hey, Murfreesboro is little more than a bedroom community for Nashville!" ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but I was speaking literally given the categories already established. While you might see about having the category changed, the norm as seen at Category:Transportation in the United States by city indicates that it is most properly by city or county rather than region. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Metro-Orange LA County
You ever beren to California before?How you know so much about California Freeways. I thouhgt the 605 South extension opposition is due to Seal Beach Naval Base, actually car travels too fast of freeways anyways. I've hear abnout the 91 West extension to Hwy 1 in Manhattan Beach-thats near LAX Airport. I'm not so clear about that one I just hear is too arugmnetal. Actually most LA-Orange-Metro freeways is generally bad in traffic anyways. I've been on the 605 about few times, most people down in my place (South Orange County) hasn't been on that freeway. That freeway is pretty dirty so is the 110 and the 60. Most freeways such as the 101 (Hollywood Freeway) is the most congest freeway, the 405 is very bad in general, I hear the 91 is also very bad. I've been on it too.-- Freewayguy ( Webmail ) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

South Valley Freeway
Should this article be started or not? There's too much exit list from the U.S. Route 101 in California exit list article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.149.253 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There has to be enough that can be written about the freeway for a separate article. --NE2 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well see if you can find any websites that has anything on it. 75.47.134.62 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There may be enough, but I'm not going to do it, at least not now. --NE2 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelope Valley Freeway
What is WestCoastRoads.com talking about this extension? --75.47.134.62 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also seen it on Google Maps that they are building a interchange at California City Boulevard, Randsburg Cutoff Road. It is possible that they are planing a freeway extension northbound to US 395 --75.47.134.62 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. I'm not your researcher. --NE2 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea too, so i'm not your helper. --75.47.134.62 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the Transportation Concept Report for SR 14 --75.47.198.132 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

SR 118 west extension
I thouhgt the SR 118 was originally plan to upgrade into freeway from SR 23 in Moorpart to SR 1 in West Ventura. This was never built and not likely to be upgrade. There must be because the envirnment people who try to block the extension. I never hear the impact clearly so I'm not sure whats the problem with making to west portion a freeway. I guess the SR 91 west extension is due to the business so people try to prohibit the upgrade from Artesia Blvd. to a freeway. Some proposals I only know a little bit but I know is not likely to come true.-- Freewayguy ( Webmail ) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to reply to this question. You might know because you can probably been to California for a visit a few times. I only seen it o Thomas Broser Map, but I never hear the details so I'm not clear. I know obviouly is not likely to come true because the travel commuters obviouly don't need the alignment, and anything go through housings, and calualbe lands is always a problem in California. Anyways, no freeways in California is easy to travel, and most freeways in Southern California is generally bad esp. the Hollywood (101) Freeway is the worst freeway, and is a nightmare to everybody.-- Freewayguy ( Webmail ) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your anwser is a joke. --75.47.134.62 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All you think about is freeways and it is not considered environmental friendly and i don't like freeways extensions that will worsen environment such as SR 118, SR 23, SR 57, SR 241, SR 91, SR 90, I-710, and whatever. --75.47.134.62 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He is not in California so stop lying to him --75.47.134.62 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys... argue on your own talk pages, not mine. --NE2 02:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
Thanks... but it doesn't really look all that much like you "added" a junction list, so much as just removed junctions from the list I already added. Apologies for adding every two-way intersection to the list. I know I was the one who told you that the junction list is only for state highways, the reason I made an exception here is because SR 9 is the only such junction, and it just seems kind of pointless to me to have a junction list with just the two termini, when all that information is in the infobox. Also, and this was poor judgement on my part, I was seeking consistency with several of the other poorly made junction lists in Washington, i.e. SR 531. Also also (:-P), even by your standards, why did you remove the two junctions with the former alignment of SR 92?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you did -- again, except maybe with the two Crooked Mile Road intersections -- I'm mostly just taking offense (term used loosely) at your edit summary. --  K é iryn talk 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I realized right after I hit save that I had used the wrong edit summary; sorry. As for the old alignments, it's probably not worth it to show most old alignments of the route itself, since on some routes there are a lot of those. --NE2 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm almost done with the GIS data; I'm going backwards through the routes and have reached 20. --NE2 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Los Alamitos Curve
Why is this article deleted anyway? --75.47.206.148 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Los Alamitos Curve --NE2 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find any sources then redirect it rather than deleting this page --75.47.206.148 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't work... it's an interchange on multiple freeways. --NE2 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Ridge Route - way to go for getting something demoted from WP:FA back up to FA status! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I guess I'll put this on my user page... --NE2 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Needles Freeway
Why this is not a common name? --75.47.131.127 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it's not... nobody uses it. --NE2 02:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what happened? --75.47.131.127 (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? --NE2 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Caltrans used the name or not? Google Maps or other map providers has found no names on I-40. --75.47.131.127 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They have, but not commonly. --NE2 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a common name, then how did this happen? --75.47.149.26 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? --NE2 23:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Needles Freeway is from I-15 to Arizona state line along with I-40 in CA --75.47.149.26 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And? Can you start making sense? --NE2 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy Expressway
There should be some sort of way to show exit 43B in the exit list on the Kennedy Expressway. Currently it looks like there is a missing exit number. (I'm aware that The Junction is a bit odd in terms of how exit numbers and thru highways work.) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Thanks! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: decommission
As much as I'd love to help you out, I am not going to touch a discussion that is already 39kb long after 2 days. In fact, I'm strongly considering re-retirement, since it's pretty clear that little if anything is going to change. Feel free to remind them though, that you're not the only one who believes use of term harms the encyclopedia, since I thought I made it very clear that I did in my comments elsewhere. --  K é iryn talk 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the plan. While we're on the topic of you helping me out with WA history... how would you go about citing the state law sections? --  K é iryn  talk 06:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What would you do with a junction list for a route like SR 103, which has no junctions with numbered highways except at its southern terminus, but is 20 miles long, and passes through two major towns? --  K é iryn talk 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the junction list? You could always add a few major roads in the towns. Definitely the former north end in Ocean Park should be there. --NE2 19:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you noticed (!) that I created U.S. Route 12 in Washington and started working on all the redirects. I was thinking that Washington State Route 12 should still redirect to U.S. Route 12 in Washington, since WSDOT (and the legislature) does have a tendency to refer to all routes as SRs -- and since US 12 is the current SR 12 it should have priority -- and the page you created could be moved to Washington State Route 12 (disambiguation) or something like that. Thoughts? --  K é iryn talk 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know - we would still want to avoid calling it SR 12, so it seems best to keep the disambiguation at SR 12. --NE2 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We would want to avoid calling it that, but we want to avoid calling a large number of things a large number of redirects. (I could probably word that better.)  That doesn't get around the fact that for the past forty years, SR 12 has referred to U.S. Route 12 in Washington. --  K é iryn  talk 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What matters is what someone will be looking for. I think the number of people typing in SR 12 (or its full forms) as opposed to US 12 is small enough that a redirect wouldn't help enough people to be worth the confusion. --NE2 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... kay. --  K é iryn talk 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)



Great job with the junction list. I found one mistake, but hey, now we're even, since you've caught about 10,000 of mine. Exaggerating, but still, thanks for all your help! --  K é iryn talk 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re: 3dwa 12
On the off chance it ever gets an article, it should probably go on the 14 template instead. It wasn't numbered off SR 14, but it was related to the roadway that is now SR 14. Someone probably needs to add a note to List of Washington State Routes (à la SR 131) regarding the 12/14 confusion. I kind of ignored it when I did that rewrite (and set up the templates). --  K é iryn talk 02:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you go over NY 174? and apology
I'm sorry for threatening to send you to AN. I hope we can put this in the past. Anyway, after several grueling days, NY 174's been through a ton of work and I was hoping you could give it a lookover? Thanks.Mitch32contribs 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Its been through even more. Is there anything else you need fixed? I think Polaron and I solved your current ones.Mitch32contribs 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Respone to Chino Valley Freeway
Why do you change a redirect like Chino Valley Freeway to the former article just to redirect it again? --NE2 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clean up articles --75.47.148.50 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the length?
What do you mean by a "physical gap"? The Accumulated Route Mileage (ARM) in the log should take into account any milepost equations and the like, and at first glance I don't see any discrepancies in the numbers. It seems kind of odd to be citing a source and then randomly deciding to hack 0.01 mile off of it... --  K é iryn talk 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't put WT:WASH back on my watchlist yet cuz I figured it was dead.
 * From the looks of it, basically what you're saying is that on SR 529, ARM 4.92 and 4.93 are the same point, so the length is actually the section from 0.00 to 4.92, plus the section from 4.93 to 7.88... so the 0.01 mile between 4.92 and 4.93 gets dropped?
 * (In other "WT:WASH wasn't on my watchlist" news, I totally agree with your suggestion to merge the secondary highway lists in with the primary highway article, and it was something I planned on doing myself. My thought would be that any SSH that became one SR would redirect to that SR, but anything that became multiple SRs would redirect to the parent PSH with the list that describes them.) --  K é iryn  talk 07:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. --  K é iryn talk 07:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the lead of an article
I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads —  master son T - C 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Concurrency color coding and Termini in Junction Lists
I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads  —  master son T - C 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Question...
What's your opinion on the PSH 19 / I-605 issue? The only source I can find is the Highways of Washington State site, which isn't all that reliable. (I'll never forgive him for the SR 517 fiasco. :-P) Plus, I find it kind of odd that such a bypass would have been proposed that early. The legislature doesn't seem to have a problem codifying roads that will "never" be built (see SRs 402 and 168), so why not PSH 19?

I figured I'd ask you since you have more experience with historical sources (pretty much all I have access to is the internet and a couple of maps), and you might be able to figure out what "other documents" that site might be referring to. --  K é iryn talk 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't found anything (but I also have access only to the internet). It's probably best to redirect to I-605 and remove all mention unless a source can be found. --NE2 19:42, 22 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) 21:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

re re: decommissioned
Thoughts given. I really don't know how much help I can be though. --  K é iryn talk 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a map to Sierra Highway?
This article needs a map. Do you want to add a map or not? --75.47.216.56 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not now. --NE2 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you don't want to add maps to streets such as Sierra Highway and Valley Boulevard. Whatever your doing finish what your doing on Washington and Oregon articles. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 50 in California
I assume that you are aware of the hold on the GAN? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to fix it, go ahead. --NE2 07:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of crossings of the Willamette River changes
You took a working link to U.S. Route 30 and replaced it with a red link to U.S. Route 30 Bypass. Are you planning to write that article today? - Denimadept (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but that doesn't mean you should point the link to the wrong place again. --NE2 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that since you're the one who wasn't happy with it, that you fix it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did fix it... --NE2 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Highway redirect
Was this the correct thing according to WP:USSH. U.S. Route 199 (Oregon) just redirects to what it was pointing at correctly before, U.S. Route 199. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that one wasn't actually necessary, since it's unlikely that US 199 will be split into two state articles. Oops. There shouldn't be a problem with the current link though. --NE2 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas state highways
Would you object to having Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas state highways deleted since it is no longer used? If not, just post at the top of the page something like GregManninLB (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care either way. --NE2 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Joy
Looks like you've already experienced it a little, but this should be fun. --  K é iryn talk 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Status on WP:NYCPT
Hello. I've noticed that you have registered as a member of WP:NYCPT. Please go to WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Participants and add or correct you status as an active or semi-active member, as well as if you are an admin, whay projects you work on, and a sample of the work you do in the NYCPT scope. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 15:43, 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)

Connecticut Company
I agree with you that I made a mistake in placing Connecticut Company in the Category:Heritage railroads in Connecticut. But I wonder: can it be placed in the Category:Defunct Connecticut railroads since it went out of business in the early 20th century and none of the other companies in the Category:Connecticut railroads is out of business at this time? 67.86.73.252 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. --NE2 04:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that, you see, I look for vandalism and unnotable articles and stuff. Honestly a mistake. Yojimbo501 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Start vs Stub quality status (Nebraska Highways)
As you may know, I've been active in creating the missing articles for the WP:NSH. I noticed you have changed the quality status of some of my creations from Stub to Start. I'm not arguing this; I just wanted to ask you if perhaps the rest of them should be bumped up to Start as well? As in, what should be the determining factor between keeping an article at one status or the other? Thanks. --Dbm11085 (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember changing any, only tagging ones that were untagged. Can you show me one I changed? --NE2 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * here. I just realized that I didn't fill in the tags fully in those early updates I did.  Nonetheless, I would like to update the rest of the ones I created, which is why I'm asking how you would distinguish between what should be Start or Stub class?  --Dbm11085 (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment --NE2 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen that. I just don't understand how the majority of the articles are still classified as stubs (should they be?), or if they should be upped to the start level.  Thoughts?  --Dbm11085 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really care; I try to get articles to B-class. --NE2 05:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 124
Talk:Interstate 124 has been restored. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
NE2, thanks for linking that guideline -- looks like my understanding of it was incorrect, so it was a worthwhile read. However, I should point out...most of the links I fixed on that article were non-functioning red links; I both created a piped link, and created the redirect page. So, it wasn't all for nothing -- they were going nowhere before!

Thank you for your work on the CRH articles, I think it represents a significant improvement over how it was set up before. -Pete (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for making the redirects - that step was good. I'm hoping to get the motivation to start writing a detailed history soon; there are certainly enough sources online. --NE2 21:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Historic Columbia River Highway
You just removed a bunch of notes from Talk:Historic Columbia River Highway without explanation. The deleted content looks like it might still be of use. ? —EncMstr (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I moved it to Talk:U.S. Route 30 in Oregon. --NE2 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Park Place (Ontario)
I noticed that you undid my edits to Park Place (Ontario) because you claim that the article is about a 'park', not a 'person'. Park Place hasn't been a 'park' for 3 years now. The former lands that were a 'park' were sold to North American Development Group (NADG) and were subsequently rezoned after a long, drawn out legal battle with the City of Barrie after NADG took the City to the Ontario Municiple Board (OMB) and won an appeal alowing NADG to have the property rezoned from 'Industrial' to 'Mixed Use Retail'. As a result of the OMB ruling NADG is forging ahead with their plans to build a shopping complex on the former Park Place lands. This legal battle dominated the local news in the City of Barrie as the City lost valuable industrial land and was stuck with a $1.6 million legal bill. It is this and the most recent scandal that form part of the 'history' of Park Place. My edit wasn't meant to focus on a 'person' per se but the fact that Terry Coughlin, the local NADG Managing Partner, issued a letter to the Ontario Court of Justice stating that NADG continues to be 'proud' of Les Fox, their current Manager of Community Relations who recently pleaded guilty to accessing 794 images of child pornography. The edit was meant to illustrate and document the ongoing 'history' of Park Place and what appears to be a mixed priority (corporate profits over the safety of children).

Corn Children Corn Children (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 99 Map?
Could you make a svg map for U.S. Route 99 and U.S. Route 99 in Washington (testing located here)? Thanks, — ComputerGuy890100  Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea - please remind me in a week or two if I have not done anything. --NE2 19:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If possible, you may want to update the old Primary State Highway 2, Primary State Highway 3, and Primary State Highway 7 maps with the newer ones you made for the current state routes. By the way, nice maps! — ComputerGuy890100  Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I-70 in Utah
Interstate 70 in Utah just barely passed the FA process. Thanks for your help in reviewing, copyediting and finding better sources than what I had found.Dave (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, congratulations to you in getting it there. --NE2 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the lead. I wasn't opposed to the lead going back to the way it was, just wanted everybody to first understand that I didn't just change the lead willy-nilly. There was a fair amount of discussion over it, and wanted all interested parties to at least see the logic of why the lead was changed. I agree, it was poorly worded as passed at FAC. Dave (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)