User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 4

Automated archiving
Hi, Rschen7754. I noticed you set up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes to be automatically archived by a bot. You may not have noticed that TwinsMetsFan and I were discussing whether or not to do so on that very page. I didn't want to seem rude by reverting it (and not knowing how Werdnabot works, I didn't want to muck something up). Would it be troublesome to ask you to remove the auto-archiving until we come to a consensus? You're welcome to participate in the discussion, of course! Powers T 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub categories
Any chance of running these past WP:WSS/P prior to creation, as per WP:STUB? Alai 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those should really still be proposed, even so, since some of those existing templates are deliberately that way, and would be significantly undersized as separate categories, and there's also the issue of what name the category should have. (Obviously that's not the case with the WI roads, at least IMO, having just proposed it myself.)   Equally, some of those templates are likewise unproposed, perhaps by people unfamiliar with the stub guidelines (e.g. in the case of Rhode Island-State-Highway-stub.  The US-roads aren't really in such bad shapes, though obviously they need to be "monitored" for rashes of new articles that could be fed into existing or future viable stub types.  Alai 03:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit to USRD
Uh what?Mitchazenia 21:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed for privacy reasonsMitchazenia 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where, i dont see anything,link it please.Mitchazenia 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed for privacy reasonsMitchazenia 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rschen-It doesnt matter, its not like i fall under that situation.Mitchazenia 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing of poll
Well, yes, we are essentially waiting for one of the admins to close the poll. Just strike out votes made after the official closing of poll. --physicq210 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing state highway discussion
I contacted an admin who will make sure the discussion is closed and protected. The participating admin have been notified, and I let them know they have until 23:59 UTC on September 4 to make their vote. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not able to get a colored background for the closed voting, but I had it protected so that only admin users are able to edit the discussion and voting sections. I will try to see if I can get somebody to put a colored background in those areas. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone could have seen this coming. No matter what the outcome, if it isn't in SPUI's favour, he marks it as "rejected" and puts up a phony reason. He's already vandalised the voting page in an attempt to sway the minds of the admins.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

heh
fair enough. out of curiosity, what's the purpose of the separate administrator sections? &mdash; Dan | talk 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll
Hey, someone pointed out to me that you protected this page. I see your name all throughout the history of the page. You should get another admin to do this for you when you're that involved with a page, or else it appears a conflict of interest; and we're trying to get away from that. Thanks! Bastique ▼ parler voir 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 2
How does one "transclude?" Don't know how to do that, and I'd like to in regards to WP:OHSH. Homefryes Say•Do 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I finally figured it out (couldn't concentrate on what you were explaining to do while I was at work yesterday). Let me know if I set up Ohio correctly.  Homefryes  Say•Do 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I jump the gun with my comment? I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that there would be discussion and voting.  Should I remove my comment for now and repost after the voting opens?   Homefryes  Say•Do 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks.   Homefryes  Say•Do 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 2 Transcluding
I am transcluding I just haven't gotten to it yet.  Stratosphere  (U T) 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * there I think I got it taken care of  Stratosphere  (U T) 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rschen7754! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CRWP
What poll are you talking about? I have been very busy lately.  Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk''' 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

California routebox
No I am not aware of this. Please enlighten me about this issue. Thanks! --physicq210 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can't we just have all the state highway articles use the same infobox? --physicq210 04:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just bring the junctions thing up when the infobox thing crops up. --physicq210 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention poll
Is this good for you? Teke ( talk ) 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How long is the admin discussion supposed to be before complete closure? Teke ( talk ) 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen. I'm giving it one more day, then I'll post at AN for someone else to formalize closure, to cover all the bases.  Teke ( talk ) 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll/Part2
If this is being done in classic Albanian democratic fashion (all citizens must vote for the only choice provided) then why bother voting. If you take a gander at WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Completion list, we have article created for every exisiting state highway in New jersey, with redirects from virtually every other meaningful alternative. The only articles that don't exists (or have redirects) are a limited number of proposed and defunct roadways. There seem to be about as many people working on New Jersey articles as participated in the original poll, yet other than SPUI (for whatever he's worth representing our state), I didn't see any other New Jersey participation in the process. A consensus is inly worth it's name if it encompasses a sufficiently broad cross-section of participants, and that just does not seem to be the case as far as the participants in WP:NJSCR are concerned, including myself. Alansohn 02:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You indicated that the New Jersey articles were to be changed " Route xx - Converting current convention to P1." On what authority? When was there an invitation to participate in this process, as you had indicated? Why is an arbitrary process being shoved down the throats of a longstanding WikiProject, founded almost a year ago, that has accomplished together what is likely the most thorough set of road articles of any state in the country? Alansohn 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * An invitation is one thing. A statement that this poll will decide how every single road article in the United States will be named is another. A review of the discussion that did take place showed much browbeating and dictator-style tactics, that even managed to cow SPUI into submission. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with trying to shove a decision down the throat of every Wikipedia user updating road articles nationwide, when there was no explanation up front as to the goals, missions and reprecussions of the one-sided process that transpired. Alansohn 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The compromise
Hopefully, this'll hold so that there won't be a next time when it comes to road name debating. In any case, I'm back (needed a couple of days away to clear my head and enjoy the Labor Day holiday), hopefully for the long run. -- T M F T - C 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina Highways Naming Convention
This has finally come to an end. All we need now from the WP:NCSH project members is a vote on which convention we should use at the National State Route Naming Convention Poll. If you feel you have enough knowledge in the area, please go to State route naming conventions poll and cast your vote. --TinMan 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously mate
Why foment conflict where none need exist? If nobody was contesting the names of NJSR pages (and apparently nobody was), why would you feel the need to create an issue over it? Just let them be. You're making this harder than it has to be by insisting on "foolish consistency" on non-contentious pages. By trying to force the issue, you're creating more enemies and stimulating more opposition. If there's existing naming conventions chosen by state WikiProjects which have not been objected to, I'd recommend they be left alone. Otherwise this is just going to snowball. FCYTravis 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note
Please note at that I had not placed the discussion for the latter two at the right place. KY X and Kentucky State Primary/Secondary/Supplemental Road X was meant only for discussion for within the body of the text. I withdrew both from voting to remove any further confusion, and added an option for Kentucky State Route X. Sorry about that.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SRNC
Can I vote only for New Jersey or can I vote for all 50 states? Who is eleigible to vote within a particular state? Alansohn 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't voters have a genuine participatory connection on the state's road articles? Dare I ask what your connection is to New Jersey's roads? For that matter, I haven't seen any edits from User:Myselfalso to NJ roads. I disagree entirely with User:Northenglish regarding the existence of controversy in New Jersey, but I have a great deal of respect for the fact that he has actively participated in WP:NJSCR, and that his vote has meaningful value as such. Alansohn 03:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have expressed, I already have genuine concerns about the process that led up to the consensus that created the proposals in question. But doesn't allowing anyone to vote in any state, even if they have never participated in editing the state's highway articles or have some other demonstrable connection to that state, undermine whatever remaining shred of validity this voting might have? Why stop at restricting the vote to those with 100 edits to anything on Wikipedia, which could consist of fixing typos or editing Pokemon articles, or anything else irrelevant to this already controversial process. Why not restrict the vote to those with 100 edits in that state or 100 edits to state highways in that state? Why not have voters state describe their justification for granting themselves a vote in a given state? I may have well over 1,000 total NJ road edits (double or triple that if I include other articles -- municipalities, bridges, interstates and U.S. Routes -- where edits were made to references to NJ roads). Why should my one vote be outweighed by any other two people who've contributed nothing to New Jersey and its road articles? If we're really trying to foster a peception of meaningful consensus, having non-participants vote just adds to the overall peception of problems with the process. Any objections to passing this on to WT:SRNC for discussion by the group? Alansohn 05:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank god for the Internet, for those who might not be in the loop about a particular state and being able to find, somehow, information on the roads there. Not everyone voting is as hapless as you make them sound. -- Stratosphere (U T) 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That list you put on WT:SRNC
Is that supposed to be only states that are mostly P2, or just any state that has a mixture of conventions? -- NORTH talk 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject map
Stratosphere's got it already. It's fairly simple to do; just open the image up in Inkscape, click a state, click the red swatch at the bottom of the screen, then save and upload. —Scott5114↗ 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Support above provided barnstar. Good work, you have far more patience than I. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your block of Vrrayman1990
This user is a sockpuppet of Randallrobinstine, a long time sockpuppeter with many puppets. I would recommend an indef block (as a sockpuppet) instead of the 3 hours, but that's just me. —Whomp (myedits) 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment
How is Interstate 244 not an article? —Scott5114↗ 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Assessment
I think it would be better off to have each state split off. Texas alone will eventually have over 3,000 articles, will be a pain in the ass to have to sift through every other states articles to find the ones I need. The bot doesn't seem to have a problem with it now when it counts the assessments. --Holderca1 04:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the bot simply didn't look in/count the articles in the subcat. I have reverted the Texas articles back.  Is there a way to get the bot to count those in subcats?  I know bots have no problem with tagging articles in subcats with WP templates.  I think it will be a lot easier on those in the respective state WPs to be able to go their specific folder rather than trying to find articles from every project.  Any thoughts on a solution? --Holderca1 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Potentially problematic edit to Interstate 335 (Minnesota)
I know I shouldn't be editing highway articles, but I found the article Interstate 335 (Minnesota) and I noticed a few things that needed to be corrected on it. Please review my change and let me know if there is anything wrong with it. If so, please revert it as soon as necessary. Again, I know it's bad form for me to edit highway articles, but "Minneapolis" was misspelled. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll
Sorry if I interfered with your editing. Next time, please put inuse or inuse-section on the page before editing to reduce such edit conflicts. Again, I apologize for my confusion. --physicq210 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I said prior to Part II voting that we already agreed at WT:NCSH (now archived info) that "NC x" would be used as the common name for linking and article text. If you look at Part II under North Carolina, you can see at the top that I stated that. As for South Carolina, I don't think it was voted on, so reverting that is fine. This poll was for the article titles anyway and not for text words I believe. I don't think that that was stated anywhere and was for Part III. Besides, I asked twice how to use brackets to get "NC x" in the voting option, but nobody said anything. Reguardless, "North Carolina x" was not chosen under any poll or any concensus, so I really don't know why that's listed under the style guide. --TinMan 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you read the above comment yet, but they were listed on Part II. --TinMan 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, just read your response. No worries. --TinMan 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the convention. My only reservation is that the proposal seems incomplete, but in a subtle way that as of now I cannot describe. --physicq210 04:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exit list guide
Hello, Rschen7754. Since you have commented on the design of exit lists in the past, you may be interested in contributing to the newly-formed exit list guide. Please give your input regarding the page as soon as possible.

Regards,  T M F T - C 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota
Are you aware that Jonathunder changed your exemption, and is now trying to change Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) to match? --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do have a look at this. As SPUI was told on our Minnesota highway project, "Minnesota State Highway X" is accepted as common name by the Minnesota editors, and there is plenty of external evidence for it. Regards. Jonathunder 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox road
Hey. I've updated the instructions over at Template:Infobox road. Feel free to make any changes you see fit. Regards,  T M F T - C 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
{&#123;unblock|Wait... what did I vandalize?}} --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been accidental, even if it was slightly humorous. — freak([ talk]) 06:27, Sep. 30, 2006 (UTC)
 * I am terrably sorry. Anything I can do to apologize? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done as per your request, anything else? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Boatload of unused redirects
Hi – question: as I was working on moving Ohio SR pages, I came across a boadload of unused redirects, most of which were created in Nov. '05. I found them here, and wondered if it's proper and acceptable for me to request their deletion. Please advise — Homefryes  Say•Do 17:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, none of them are being used, and when I did the page move, they all became double redirects. Therefore, I technically should fix them all, unless you think it's okay to just let them be.  I just want to be sure I'm doing the right thing here.  Thanks —  Homefryes  Say•Do 12:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SRNC re: Washington
Hey, I just noticed that we finished Oregon and California about the same time. If you'd like, I could take care of Washington, since it seems like you have more work to do than me. -- NORTH talk 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- NORTH talk 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

U. S. Highways Maps task force
I am in the process of making a more detailed version of the WikiProject Council/Directory, and would like to know if you want the maps task force listed. Please tell me if you would like to have the task force listed separately, under the main Highways entry, on the final version of the directory. Oh, and per conventions, it would help a lot if there were a place on the task force page for someone to add their names as a member of the task force. That's just a small point, however. Good luck on working on the highways. Badbilltucker 19:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mostly"
When I added "mostly" I meant that I have moved all the pages and made "most" (actually almost all) of the necessary redirects. You may remove the entries. Peter O. (Talk) 02:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects that need to be deleted
Question: What should we do if there's a redirect in the way of a move? Should I just notify you or another admin? Should I post it to WP:RM normally? Should we create a special requested moves page as a subpage of WP:SRNC? I'm sure some other non-admin has run into this problem already; I just need to know what I'm supposed to do.

The specific move I'm having trouble with is Route 18N (New Jersey) → New Jersey Route 18N. The page used to be titled "Pre-1927 ...", so the redirect at the P1 name has an edit history. -- NORTH talk 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of the deletion. Just so you know, it did get taken care of as fast as it could, since I did exactly what you told me to -- I let you or another admin know once I know the problematic redirect existed. :-P -- NORTH talk 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also need help with:
 * New Jersey Route 28
 * New Jersey Route 29
 * to be cont'd
 * -- NORTH talk 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. One more for now... Sorry I have to do this in bits and pieces.
 * New Jersey Route 33 Business
 * -- NORTH talk 23:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Seicer
Take it to ANI. I'll be gone for a few days, but I will easily say that you will have a lot of support. I'm reverting the talk page.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we're "complete idiots"
Or at least that's what User:David Gerard thinks on WP:AN/I. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Great Lakes Circle Tour Shields
I am in the process of determining whether the five shields for Great Lakes Circle Tour (visible at The Great Lakes Information Network but I am concerned and unsure of the copyright for them. The site (and its parent have copyrights on them so I believe that I cant post them in Commons under any free use license. I am unsure if fair use comes into play here. I have not uploaded the images I made to Wikipedia either until I can be sure this does not violate copyright. Can you give me your honest opinion of what the best approach would be - is it a fair use, or a free license? Thanks --•  master_son  Lets talk  00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Robot-assisted disambiguation: U.S. Highway 1"
I don't understand the edits your bot made with this edit summary, changing U.S. Highway 1 to U.S. Highway 1. U.S. Highway 1 is a redirect, not a disambiguation page, and these edits are a bad idea for the reasons given in Redirect. --NE2 03:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop making edits like the last two on U.S. Route 17. I am reporting your bot on Wikipedia talk:Bots. --NE2 03:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Redirect, you should in fact stop the bot:
 * Most especially, there should never be a need to replace redirect with redirect .

In fact, your bot's edits should probably be reverted. --NE2 03:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What you did does not seem like "fixing" to me: linking directly with no pipe should be preferred, as it produces smaller and cleaner code. --NE2 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be best in some states, where U.S. Route 101 is the common style. But in states where U.S. Highway 101 is the common style, I would think we should reflect that. This is the same principle as choosing British or American English. --NE2 03:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by that? I see some discussion about the State Route 17 style (that used by the state government?) being different from the more common Highway 17 style. However, there are some states where both the state government and common usage are the U.S. Highway style. Florida is a good example of that; as intra-state U.S. Routes, 92 and 192 are ideal cases. Saying U.S. Route 192 is not wrong, so it may be beneficial to place the article there for intra-system consistency, but U.S. Highway 192 is a much more common style in Florida, and so I would think it best to use that when linking to and writing about the road. --NE2 04:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Iowa Highway xx, since that's what's on WP:USSH? If so, I agree, as long as the text itself is changed, not just the page being linked to. In this case, Iowa State Highway 1 is actually worse than Iowa State Highway 1, as someone checking "what links here" will think it has been fixed when it actually has not. --NE2 04:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Block
For the vandal that persistantly disrupted my discusiion page. By the way, are you going to make an article about the interstates/roads in Montana? That would be interesting since Montana doesn't have speed limits? Bearly541 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

WT:USSH
My apologies. I had removed it because I thought the problems had been resolved. NE2 was the only editor involved who had lost any content due to his edit conflicts. Please be aware that you have accidentally duplicated the entire page. -- NORTH talk 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give me a green light once you think all is clear. NE2 has made another blanking edit as well as removing the inuse tag. -- NORTH talk 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help managing that. I think I've said all I have to say, so I'm going to go back to the insanity that is moving the NJ pages.  If you think something new is said that I should respond to, feel free to send me a message on my talk page, and I'll come back. -- NORTH talk 22:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, hurrah for moving on. :-) -- NORTH talk 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the ending of probation
You had some questions on RFAr about users getting off probation. I've compiled the complete list of users on Probation from which it is easy to identify those who are behaving themselves and contributing. Have started a thread about it at WT:RFAr. You may wish to contribute. Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Apparently, yes. Thanks if you unblocked me. Thanks anyway if you didn't. =P --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent you a response. --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't quite get your question about MedCab. Do you mean submitting such a case would be a good idea or not, or...? --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wished not to involve myself any farther into the now-heated(?) controversy. I did not step my foot in the first place, nor do I want to step my foot in now and end up only to scald everyone's legs and get everyone even more mad, if that's a proper metaphor. And also, I was involved in the debate, so there might be accusations of bias one way or another. Hence I recused in an effort to save everyone's breath a bit. --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough to participate, and the heat seems to have died down. I'm sorry if this was a discouragement and/or setback. --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:USSH
D'oh! Sorry, mised that part. :) That said, seems a few of the articles don't meet the convention either, but I don't really want to get involved in that fight.  81.104.170.167 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Input requested
Oh yes, I almost forgot. Please take a look at Village_pump_%28assistance%29 when you get a chance. Any input is appreciated. Thanks! -- T M F T - C 04:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears this user is back at it again. See Pennsylvania Route 987 (the unnecessary linking and his inability to use the preview button) and Airport Road, Pennsylvania (bad name and poorly written; its purpose is unclear as well). I don't know what to do with this user, as I'm not going to bother to leave a message on his/her talk page (as the user doesn't read it anyway), and the mess that this user has created on PA-related articles will take weeks and multiple users to clean up. Any thoughts? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA
Thanks for the encouragement. To be honest though, I don't know why I even need a mop. All it would do would give me more work closing XfD's and whatnot. :-P -- NORTH talk 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
And, of course, thank you for your efforts to defend my history during my RfA. I look forward to editing Wikipedia in the capacity as an admin: more maturely and more civilly. --210 physicq  ( c ) 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Page moves
I'm just taking a little break from major contributions right now. The only ones I have left to do are the ones that don't actually have to be done right now (the all-P2 exceptions). If I were you, I'd take care of your Tennessee sign-up first, then see what's going on with User:Xxpor and Maine.

Once Tennessee and Maine are done, feel free to help me with the extra states. If not, I'll get them done within the next month or two. Either way is totally fine with me. -- NORTH talk 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

California state route 2
The information about the storm dammage is important because it is history of the road. This is not your average closure, it's been at least 8 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtroll (talk • contribs)

California SR infobox discussion
Rschen7754, you are invited to participate in the (definitely less structured than WP:SRNC) WT:CASH infobox discussion. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot
I've been told they've been fixed. Was the problem recent? Do you have a diff? &mdash; SCZenz 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A diff would have made things a lot clearer here; you are aware that you can use the history tab to show the changes between any two versions, right? It took me a lot of digging to realize there are two problems:
 * Wernabot archived everything as one section on 21 September, just like it did everywhere else that day. This bug is fixed.
 * Werdnabot archived the same thing three times on 23-24 August: here, here, and here.  The problem is that Werdnabot didn't actually remove the material from the original page until the third time, so it kept trying to archive the same material.  This appears to be a genuine bug and should be reported to User:Werdna.
 * Definitely give him the diffs, though; copy them from my text above if you have trouble making them yourself. Otherwise it'll take him a long time to figure out what's going on. -- SCZenz 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Moves
Yea, I'm still interested. I've been busy these past few weeks. Thanks for reminding me :D xxpor (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, you are more than welcome to help. I just wanted to be sure that the higher-priority ones were done first.  I was planning on starting up again with them soon; I'll just take care of whatever's not done by the time I get to them. -- NORTH talk 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub cat. you created is up for deletion
The stub category Rhode Island State Highway stubs is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion from Oct. 24. If you don't want it to be deleted, please explain there why not. Eli Falk 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More redirects
Finally finished New Jersey, except for these two problem redirects: Thanks a bunch, and also thanks for supporting my RfA. -- NORTH talk 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * New Jersey Route 68
 * New Jersey Route 92

If you get a chance, could you move Missouri State Highway 133 over top of Missouri Route 133? It looks like the redirect got created backwards for that one. Sam8 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of personal page
Thanks for the revert. I appreciate it... --Mhking 02:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Images went haywire
I didn't receive any email from you; can you resend it? --Geopgeop 11:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox CA Route/browse route and Infobox CA Route/browse no route
Rschen,

Your edits to the above templates broke the browse box in the articles using Infobox CA Route. I know that template was created by that certain user, but hold up on editing them until the project has a "final" infobox to use. Though I must say, this isn't like you to edit them without even an edit summary. --Geopgeop 12:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and I'm going to revert them right now so the browse box works for now. --Geopgeop 12:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to delete
I've finished Connecticut -- cleaned up a number of double redirects left behind when other people tried to help as well -- except for one rogue page, Connecticut Route 15.

Also, I've decided that rather than let you know every single time I find a rogue redirect that needs to be deleted, I'm using one of my sandbox pages to maintain a list. It's up to you whether you want to put it on your watchlist, or I'll just let you know when I'm all done.

Also also, if you want me to tweak the browsing for California, I'd be happy to help. -- NORTH talk 21:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Roads at .es
As far as I know, there's no sort of U.S. roads WikiProject at Spanish Wikipedia. (I haven't rooted around in their Wikipedia: namespace too much though.) I translated some of the basic information for Interstate 35 and Interstate 40 mainly to see if I could (I'm still learning basic Spanish). Aside from some categorization, nobody there's touched them. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma pagemoves
Could you fix up OK-108? You moved it to Oklahoma State Highway 107. Oklahoma State Highway 108, where it should be, is some sort of broken redirect now. You'll have to delete that redirect to move the page. —Scott5114↗ 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Scott5114↗ 20:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Roads of Charleston, West Virginia.. again
See: Roads of Charleston, West Virginia. Not satisfied with screwing up the redirects to it, the IPuser is suggesting it be merged. Can you imagine the page of roads being squished into an already lengthy city page? I left him a warning on his user page about his redirect screwup, but let's nip this one in the bud and vote to decline.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Seicer
Youngamerican suggested that too, but it would make them unsearchable for the moment on my hard-drive. They are currently sorted by date, so I am copying them over into new directories where they are sorted by State, then Route and then County. All future uploads will be in a more descriptive manner.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Close out AfD for Ghost ramps
Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp has been inactive, and the majority through lengthy discussions has resulted in a 9 to 5 vote, with 1 neutral. Included is 1 keep but rename.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. I had no idea what the timeframe was between the end of discussion and when the case could be closed. Note that the majority does not indicate consensus, as you noted, so its not set in stone. If they want to reopen it at a later date, that would be fine with me but I don't see it going anywhere.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghost ramp on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ghost ramp. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --W.marsh 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Highway 441 (Wisconsin)
I left a message on the talk page. Please respond there. THANKS! RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (copied from the article's talk page) My main question was about the exact naming system. I'm glad to hear that I did indeed have it right (or close enough). I wasn't questioning the order of the moves or the speed of the effort. I appreciate all the hard work in directing/guiding/teeth pulling that people like you did to get the state highway systems standardized as much as possible. Wikipedia is better for your efforts! RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevada shields
Thanks for informing me of that. By the way, would you be so kind as to handle the permission requests for me? If you can, I could email you the email address and phone number of the guy at NevadaDOT I talked to. Thanks either way. --Geopgeop 07:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you read about what I posted on WT:USRD -- I just want a reaffirmation for the permissions that I received to do the shields, as say, Commons:Image:Nevada 604.svg, or the others, as I put phone call from NevadaDOT as reason for permission, which now, I don't think, is reason enough. Actually, http://www.nevadadot.com/contact/ is a place to start. --Geopgeop 08:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Let me give you the email; I'll email it to you. --Geopgeop 03:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From NevadaDOT or me? --Geopgeop 04:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you try again? --Geopgeop 04:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a "Dear sir, I haven't received a reply regarding the use of Nevada shield images on Wikipedia..." (not the specifications, the images), and a summary of past conversations if needed. --Geopgeop 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The user, part 3
User:Albertotineo10 has resurfaced again, doing much of the same things the user has done before: making multiple edits in a row, using atrocious grammar/spelling, and, the most troubling: continuing to steal images from state-ends.com, which the user admits in this edit. I would say something on their talk page, but as you and I both know, the user doesn't read it. After two previous blocks of 24 hours, I think it might be time for a longer block or some other course of action. Any thoughts? -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you actually block someone for not following the manual of style? --NE2 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was taken without permission from: . This user should be blocked for a week for multiple violations and for stating that he "created it."  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Added speedy delete tag.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the curator of Pennsylvania State Ends. This photo was taken by Denis Malvern and can be found  here.  It can also be found here.  The photo was taken November 2, 2002.  I am unaware of who the user in question is, nor did he ask permission to use Mr. Malvern's photo here. I appologize if I have not met posting protocol.  This is the first time I have posted on Wiki as i was made aware of it today. --CanesFan27 03:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I notified CanesFan27 (Adam) via IM after applying the speedy delete tag onto the image.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Texas highways
Are you going to finish moving the Texas highway pages or are they going to remain like that until someone else comes along. I was under the impression from the naming convention thing that Texas was giving an exception until someone came along, notified the project via the project talk page that they were going to start moving the pages and then they would procede to move them all, not just part of them and then move to another state and start moving them. Please finish moving the Texas articles before you start moving another projects pages, this is precisely what I didn't want happen. --Holderca1 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to switch. You finish Texas, I've got Florida. -- NORTH talk 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all the Texas highways moves! It is appreciated. I have one small issue. Can we get Texas State Highway 1 Loop moved to Texas State Highway Loop 1? This is how TXDOT names them. I went ahead and redirected the rest of the redirect pages, but when I tried to move the main page, it wouldn't let me. Hopefully I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. 25or6to4 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't understand which business routes you're referring to. 25or6to4 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. That's a good question.  On the TXDOT website, they're listed as "Business State Highway ##".  There hasn't been any discussion on this yet, but I would guess that sticking to TXDOT naming would be generally agreed upon.  25or6to4 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although in my opinion, the business roads don't need their own articles, they can very easily be added to their parent highway's article. Others may disagree though, but in any event, I think info on the business highways should start on the parent highway, if they outgrow it, then they would get their own article.  --Holderca1 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be Texas Business State Highway 24. --Holderca1 04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

NV State Highways / Routes
Oops forgot to log in.

Doing my best to get them up to standards of wiki :).  some info on the pages was added by me,  not sure if online or offline mode,  plus i have found more in detailed information, which i am replacing the old with the better i found  :))     Odyssey19 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI
Any administrator may ban him from any area he disrupts, If he does not respect the ban, he may be blocked. See []. Fred Bauder 03:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you edit in the highway area it is better if someone else bans him, but if you are the only one who knows and appreciates the problem you may have to be responsible. There were a lot of people in that discussion at AN/I, ask for help there. Remember a ban is just telling him he can't edit in an area. It is only if he continues that you can block him. Fred Bauder 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey ... finally got a username and such.

One day I hope to be like you on wikipedia. Haha

Anyways, just trying to figure it all out, hopefully I didn't screw up your page posting this.

Ryan

21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops...
Here ya go:Ryan Moore 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay.

Myspace
The link from your myspace page.

Anyways, I already spend way too much time on here so I figured why not actually contribute and spend even more time?

Ryan Moore 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox road vs individual state infoboxes
I see what you are proposing with the California hwys project and like. We do need a consistent routebox for the state highways for sure. My question is - Many states do use IBR already, but there are several other states that have their own routeboxes right now as well (i.e. Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, North Carolina, to name a few.) Are we planning on deprecating these altogether? I would suggest such as they all are pretty inconsistent with the suggested style outlined by IBR. Could I also suggest getting a taskforce together for enforcing use of proper templates? Lastly - what about County routes, Interstate Routes and U.S. Routes (I do see that the I and US routes pretty much Mirror IBR) Thx --•  master_son <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> Lets talk  18:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 78 question
Hey, I added a NJ Route 24 to the Interstate 78 major junction box, is that irrelevant?

Nextbarker 05:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

SPUI
Seeing the unsuccessful response given, what do you suggest? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Patience Fred Bauder 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a change of pace: a request that has nothing to do with road articles
Howdy, Rschen. I'm back after a bit of a break (and I'm still "breaking" from the Florida State Roads ones after writing several dozen stubs and others), and I've gotten involved in TV series list articles. While I was able to start one from scratch in my userspace and moved it over (List of longest running U.S. cable television series), the next two (List of longest running U.S. primetime television series and List of longest running U.S. broadcast network television series), I'd rather edit from the original List of longest running U.S. television series - but I cannot simply copy the entire list onto User:B.Wind/sandbox1 or User:B.Wind/sandbox2 without losing the history of the contributions. Could you, as an admin, make a copy of the original list and set it up in one or both of the "sandbox" pages and maintain the history, or are there some instructions that I can follow so these two lists can be created... and enable me to update the original list with information that basically has to wait until to other lists are prepared? Many thanks for any help/advice/etc. B.Wind 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon my denseness (it's been a looong workweek in academia)- there is no way to preserve the history when I try to duplicate a list article and then edit the copy to create a new list? I'd think Wikipedia would have a way to preserve the history, somehow... Thanks for checking back. Unless we find a way, I guess I'll have to use the ol' cut'n'paste and thumb my nose at the history to get the jobs done this weekend. B.Wind 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 37
I noticed you've rated the above article as start class. Could you please explain? I'm trying to make it GA class, and a few suggestions would be nice. Thx.--LBMixPro &lt;Sp e ak o n 03:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've changed everything "State Route XX" to "California State Route XX" (something I wanted to do but wasn't sure I should), and split the lead section with ==Route description== (but that'll break WP:LEAD standards, won't it?). Everything that fits the standard for both Wikiprojects has been met, and the only thing preventing it from A-status IMO is that it uses a depreciated infobox with no map, and I can't seem to calculate the statewide postmiles in the exit list. ATM, it's nominated for GA. --LBMixPro &lt;Sp e ak o n 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

'assessment' code on California State Highway WikiProject, etc
The assessment code you've added to a number of state highway templates are causing very strange-looking redlinks when applied to category pages; e.g.,. I hesitate to suggest that what it needs is yet another conditional parser function, but it's probably a matter of either one more, or about seven fewer... I don't know if this is "standard" assessment code, but yours are the only templates I've noticed this happening with... Alai 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the section of code that seemed to be causing the problem: I don't see the rationale for having a comments page for the non-assessment of non-articles, to put it mildly.  I'll ask the (apparently) original author of the assessment page about the details of the code.  If there's no objection to that, I'll remove it from the others, too.  Alai 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed the problem code from all of the obviously-affected templates, and from the "template template" on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment. Alai 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Florida State Road 41
Yes, I'm aware that I formatted the page wrong. I tried to redirect it to the correct one, and I ended up doing the opposite of what I had intended. DanTD 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Boogered templates here
Just FYI, your top-of-talk-page templates overlap in a most icky manner in the Safari browser (so probably also Konqueror; they share much of the same codebase). By moving them around in the code, you can fix that, and I don't think it will affect their display in any other browser, because of the CSS positioning that the Archive box uses. Demo here, which looks fine in Safari: User:SMcCandlish/Temp/Rschen7754. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 07:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Punarama
Why was Punarama (Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 24) Speedily Deleted? It only had two responses (one of which was one of the deleting admins - conflict of interest!) to the AfD, which was only just filed, and both of them were nothing but notability claims. Aside from the specific topical notability guidelines enumerated as actionable under Policy at WP:DEL, non-notability alone is not deletion-actionable in and of itself, and even WP:NN is currently Disputed, so it isn't actionable either, only topical ones are. Aside from all of that, even the WP:DEL-blessed notability criteria do not justify WP:SPEEDY deletion. If something else justified Speedy Deletion it should have been recorded in the deletion log at the link above. I haven't even seen the article, but if the only identified problem with it was that the nominator thought it was "non-notable comics" then this article should be undeleted and subject to a full AfD. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 07:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the SD is not undone (and the article presumably returned to AfD), then as per WP:DGFA, I am requesting that the Punarama article and any subpages (talk, etc.) be moved to my userspace, as User:SMcCandlish/Temp/Punarama (and subpages thereof, if applicable, obviously :-). Thanks.  If it has any redeeming qualities, I'll see what I can do for it. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 11:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looking it over, it does appear to be subject to WP:DEL, row 2, under WP:WEB, and I don't think it would have survived AfD due to WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV issues, unless seriously cleaned up. Sorry for the false alarm.  Reason/excuse: The AfD didn't say it was a webcomic, but a comic, and "Notability (books)" (which I believe would cover paper comics) is still a just a draft proposal, so the SD looked like it might have been overzealous at first glance.
 * PS: What's the "Get a stub standard implemented" on your task list, if I may be nosy? Sounds interesting.&mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

XML image
It needs to be deleted from the commons end as it is a commons image. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, it has already been done and the image you can see is Commons' image. Thanks anyway. Poppypetty 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Weatherford International
You speedy deleted Weatherford International today. It was an article about a large NYSE listed company, and listed in S&P 500, and as I remember, the article was as good or as bad as most articles in Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The article was linked to, and didn't include copyvio material. Could you please revert the deletion, and submit a regular AfD if you believe it is spam. Thanks. --69.19.14.20 22:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article is deleted, I can't check the history, maybe you can, see if the content wasn't replaced recently (there were some attampts a few weeks back), see User talk:Qyd. Well, no big loss, it's just that I know that wasn't spam.--69.19.14.20 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Writing an article in first person is not allowed at Wikipedia, spam or not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't written in first person, at least not the last version I checked. It might have been overwritten (vandalised?) again at some point, I can't be sure, as the history is not acessible anymore. I guess I was the only editor watching that page, and, as I'm unable to log in at this time, I didn't revert the change, and with the article deleted, I can't do that anymore. Please reply on my talk page (I'm over a very dinamic sat connection now, so I can't log in). Thanks.
 * Thanks for the effort of retrieving the article. The paragraph cited proves it was a vandalised version that you deleted (you could have reverted the spam instead of speedy deleting the article). Well, too late now, I'll eventually re-write the entry. Thanks again for your effort. --69.19.14.20 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, it's exactly what I wanted in the first place. I'll warn the user who repeatedly overwrote the article with spam+copyvio. Thanks again.

Route 51
That is not what is being discussed at WT:USSH. He changed Route x to Route x. --NE2 03:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:USSH very clearly states: There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect; do not "fix" these "pipe-tricked" links. The discussion is about links that started out as Route x. --NE2 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please look at his edits before pretending that you know what I am doing? --NE2 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that link, but if you care to change it to Route x despite Redirect, go ahead. --NE2 03:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting your objection. --NE2 03:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

EA Link
I noticed you deleted the page EA Link without deleting the page that redirected to it, EA Downloader. I personally do not feel that this page should have been deleted, and so I have undeleted it. Feel free to discuss deleting it again. I understand that you were deleting because of the speedy tag, but please take more time on your decisions in the future, and review the tags to make sure you're making the right choice. - Mysekurity 04:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 516 Infobox
I tried the standard interstate infobox, but the main shields wouldn't show; I subsequently posted with the other one...--Mhking 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - 421 is hidden; but given that 516 shares 21 signage across its entire run, I figured it would make sense to include it in the infobox. --Mhking 05:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. No prob. --Mhking 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
Beatgr 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Regarding the speedy deletion of the WIUW article by User:Calton. I have no control over webmasters of Intenret web pages -- that improve their web pages by lifting Wikipedia content (sometimes 'wor for word') to improve their web pages. Wikipedia has no policy (or copy protection for itself) that I have found in this policy or administrative area. Editors, such as Calton seem to blindly assume that the Wikipedia volunteer writers and contributors are always at fault, never considering the possibility that its was a reverse copy. The original Wikipedia writer has no easy method to know that change to the web page reference has occurred. This guilty, until proven innocent approach is not in the canon of Wikipedia or its earlier GNU ancestors. This is an area that Wikipedia adminsitrators need to examine. Beatgr 18:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For a radio station Mission statement - the usage of "we" is totally appropriate. In fact, how can you legally "change" a mission statement that is part of the required FCC license application? May I refer you to a document that starts with 'We the People ..." Beatgr 08:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * May I refer you to a statement you made in your article... This is not a mission statement, this is advertising. If it really is a mission statement then it needs to be properly cited. I no longer have access to this original copy, that was my original request to you. You are now quoting from (or have access to) materials and entry only available for administrators and editors - it was speedy deleted from Wiki.  This just informs me that speedy deletion process is "as deemed appropriate by Wiki editors and/or adminsitrators" with minimal or no discussion."  Possibly a more approrpiate and efficent approach is for all new Wiki entries and major edits to be submitted in an approval queue by Wiki editors and administrators -- would save everyone a considerable amount of time and harrassment. Beatgr 08:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can give you the text of the original article if you wish. However, if you have a problem with my deletion decision, WP:VFU can help you there. --
 * Thanks for offer -- That was my original request! User:Calton took exception for such a request process - some comment about I was walking into a train wreck -- you don't know the top people like I do, etc.  Just more arrogance for his cavalier speedy deletion approach - and lack of possible wrong approach.  The WIUW entry has been retyped.  I am advising  the Wikipedia radio station project that I will drop out further volunteer assistance, at this time.  I really wish that if an editor does not understand the subject OR is working on the project that they would be a bit more cautious in speedy deletion usage (comes across like a 'bully' approach).  In a strange way, it is just another process like the earlier "BOT" editors.  IF I did a speedy deletion as an editor -- to your Wiki highway and road contributions (a significant amount of work and discussion) -- you get an idea of what my reaction and thoughts are. IF you drive all knowledgeable contributors and potential financial donors away - then Wikipedia is not viable with a small group of administrators and editors.  Beatgr 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:California State Route 210
Just wanted to reiterate my apology for unintentionally jumping down your throat. We're all overworked on Wikipedia -- and even moreso in real life. -- NORTH talk 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie on Wikipedia, Oldie on efgh.com
Thank you for your comments on my recent additions to some of the road articles.

Yes, I am the creator of efgh.com, and I am starting to post some of the material to Wikipedia, with appropriate changes.

Up to now, I have been editing pages by following the style of existing pages.

I started the page County Route S1 (California), and I'm still working on it.

Perdelsky 04:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom voting
Nope. I've seen votes with links. Link away! --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Left Behind
'Gone' is also a Rapture movie that would interest Left Behind readers. Over 600,000 people have seen 'Gone'. What part of this is not relevant? If you're a Christian, you need to look at the Apostle Paul's words of being extra kind to fellow Believers. You're hindering the Lord's work by deleting 'Gone' from the Left Behind site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MovieFan02134 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Question re: WP:CASH browsing
I posted this on WT:USRD, but you may have missed it since it was a couple of sections up from the bottom. Is there a legitimate reason (other than status quo) that California uses "Route" instead of "SR" in the browsing? As far as I can tell, everywhere outside of New England uses an abbreviation (either SR, SH, or the postal abbreviation), and it doesn't appear that the same logic that applies to New England would apply to California.

I'll fix it once you give me the green light, hopefully it'll only require one template edit. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Substing state highway infoboxes
I prefer to work with straight markup rather than infoboxes because the markup offers much more flexibility. See my user page, for instance. But if you want to use infoboxes instead, it's fine with me. Casey Abell 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevada State Routes & Highways
I Will make corrections per request. Sorry they were out of format.

Will go over them and refer to NV SR 28 for further reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odyssey19 (talk • contribs) --09:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on my campaign to become an administrator
Hello , I hope that you are having a happy holiay season. I have recently been nominated to become an administrator here on Wikipedia. I am asking that since I have worked with you in the past that you stop by my nomination page and consider entering a vote, hopefully in support of my becoming an administrator.


 * Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk:No1lakersfan if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Editor review/, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highways 40 and up - Map Needed category
Just curious - since I think its nothing a null edit couldn't fix - I noticed that the Wisconsin Highway articles for STH 40 - 794 were categorized under the letter 'H' in Category:U.S._Roads_project_articles_needing_maps and gathered through the history of Wisconsin Highway 100 that you put the "mapneeded=yes" on these articles prior to renaming them per WP:SRNC. Is it imperative to make sure they fall under W instead of H? - I added the "mapneeded=yes" tag to the remaining WIS highway articles with AWB (I'm not sure yet if AWB can handle null edits to fix the rest :|) on 12/25. • <span style="font-variant: small-caps; color:#006600!important"> master_son <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> Lets talk  04:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It will eventually be fixed, I assume the server's messed up... it's not a big deal frankly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also could you notify WT:IH about the 3di templates being messed up by an IP? I don't have the time to fix it on dialup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I also fixed the one in question. •  <span style="font-variant: small-caps; color:#006600!important"> master_son <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #aca607!important;"> Lets talk  04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)