User talk:SPUI/Archive4

Cleanup tags
Hi there,

I didn't intentionally remove the tags, just I had copied and added to the Nomenclature section while you had created the article by copying said content, so I didn't see a problem with overwriting.

I readded the category thing, but didn't spot the tags.

However, you are supposed to provide detailed reasons for the tags on the talk page (i.e. should have been detailed on Talk:Freeway 12 days ago). If you could provide specifics there, and on Talk:Types of road, that'd be great. Otherwise, the tags should be removed.

I agree the section needs improved - it needs extra countries added, and some countries detailed in more concise but general terms - to avoid imbalance in the page makeup, and oversized article if the extra countries are added. But that is not necessarily an immediate need to adorn it with templates. Making such suggestions on the talk page is more appropriate for such a long term "improvement" ambition.

zoney &#09827; talk 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

please respond
Please respond on my user page, you didn't explain what you were talking about. --mboverload @ 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SVG images
I noticed you added previously shield graphics for many highway-related articles. How are these SVG images generated? Thanks.  Seicer  (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves
SPUI - you carried out a cut and paste move at Super two (to what is now Two-lane limited access road) some time back. I'm going to repair the page histories - leaving your new article with just its history (pretty much your edits), and adding the older history to Two-lane limited access road. There is a "move" function for a reason. Don't do cut and paste moves! It breaks the edit history of pages.

Anyways - this is just a notice, as to carry out the fix, I temporarily will be deleting Super two, and it'll temporarily be the old article. Don't panic! I'll be returning it to its current state after fixing the histories.

If you want to see what I'll be doing, check out How to fix cut and paste moves; section A more complex case.

zoney &#09827; talk 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All done, no hitches - feel free to take a look at both articles. Anyways, if the contents remaining at freeway are to be moved, we will be using the move page function, not cut-and-paste.
 * zoney &#09827; talk 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OC Transpo pages
I believe thay fall under the "etc." setion of A7. There is no assertion of importance of any of these routes. --DarkAudit 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional They are now under one AfD. --DarkAudit 00:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again
Please join the civil discussion on WT:WASH regarding naming conventions and the infobox so that we can get consensus and put this ugly mess behind us. -- NORTH talk 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps
Rock on Stratosphere 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Little ol' me
Having fun messing around with all my stuff? My watchlist is reaching 500 edits from your stuff. I understand what you're doing, but dang, calm down and let me explain some things.
 * #1: I put all those route shields in that Category:North Carolina State Highways category because they needed to be organized somehow and not haphazardly floating around. I was going to put them in a Category:North Carolina route shields, but I didn't have time to switch them all. Plus, some are floating around on the Wikipedia Commons, and I don't have time to go look for all those. I'm not as experienced at all the shortcuts as you... obviously... but I'm working on it.
 * #2: The unsourced pics. Some I created, some I didn't. I didn't know which lisence went with what so I used attribution because it forced anyone referencing to it to put where it came from, like with any report. The articles look better with the pictures, but I understand following copyright issues. I didn't claim anything that was mine as my own.
 * #3 The business (Bus) plate. ([[Image:business plate.svg|20px]]) I made that thing because when you shrink the regular business plate down to 20 px, you can't read a darn thing. There is an alt plate for the alternate plate that seems to do the same thing. But, if you don't like it, get rid of it; it's not that big of a deal.
 * #4 Business Interstate 40 (North Carolina) merger. I disagree with it, explained in the talk section.

By the way, I really appreciate all the work you've done on the article's I've seen, making maps, and .svg's. I'm not angry or anything, I just wanted to explain myself so you don't start hating my edits and trying to get me banned. By the way, how do you do all that stuff so fast? Got a bot working for ya? --TinMan 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

MA Route 213
I'd like to use the image at http://www.robotikon.com/loop_connector/495.jpg in Route 213 in order to demonstrate that it is signed as the "Loop Connector." How do I go about getting permission to use the image? (The last time I uploaded an image, I got slapped on the wrist for a copyright violation.) Tckma 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
SPUI, good buddy, good pal. Even on pages that have no controversy surrounding their naming convention, you're not supposed to fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Many of your edits that showed up in my watchlist today (mostly WP:NJSCR) consisted solely of you "fixing" New Jersey State Highway X links that already had piped alternatives. -- NORTH talk 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

US Route XX (New York) Articles
Greetings. Do you have any plans to expand the "US Route XX (New York)" articles into full-blown articles in the future? If so, I'll prepare the NYSR standards for a few changes regarding the browse. -- T M F T - C 07:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Just stop. I'm trying hard to get you what you want in Washington, but you have to be willing to give an inch. Taking I-195 and I-80 out of the NJTP infobox is just.... no. -- NORTH talk 10:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Signage at the I-95/I-80 split has turnpike signs continuing east towards the GWB. I'll look for a source. It would have been nice if you'd explained that in your edit summary. -- NORTH talk 10:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * pic from aaroads.com -- NORTH talk 10:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Northbound no, southbound yes. (Note how the new signage says SOUTH 95/TPK TO 46, not SOUTH 95 TO TPK/46.)
 * Basically, when it came under the jurisdiction of the Turnpike Authority, it became part of the turnpike. -- NORTH talk 11:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

End Turnpike sign about two-thirds of the way down the page, located at the Port Authority tollbooth approach. -- NORTH talk 11:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who insists on making the infoboxes as short as possible, I'm curious as to why you put the historical tidbit in.

Also, what's your reasoning for using the less accurate locations for the junctions? No major gripes, though. -- NORTH talk 11:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Interstate
Since it appears that you made some major edits to the infobox, could you please document them in the noinclude? That way others know how to use it. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also could you please double check your changes. They appear to have broken at least one Interstate Infobox at I-80. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

List of mayors of Manning, Alberta
You thought this should be merged; I merged it. Why do you think it should not be deleted? —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seemed that the reason for which the prod was removed had been resolved. A prod removal does not mean a prod may never be added again, and for different reasons, in all perpetuity. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OR on Middlesex CR 676
Thanks for tagging the actual statement you have issue with, you'll have to see HurricaneCraze32 for that.

For future reference, the original research tag you're using says "see talk page for details." It helps if you actually put details on the talk page. -- NORTH talk 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highway Sheild Bugs
Forgive me if I mentioned something that is old, but there are a few WI highway shields in your collection that will not display the 20 Pixel size in Wikipedia. I searched them all out to find that the following are affected

17, 29 (I tried to fix these and succeeded)

64, 66, 70, 143, 166 and 310.

I have built a draft page in my userspace [] if you would like to look at the pictures. I hope not to have them in my space for long though. Thanks for your help in advance. -- master_son  Lets talk 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

US 46 Map
Done and done. Thanks for letting me know. Stratosphere 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Two questions
1)I like the new template and it looks to be quite useful, but how do those highways in NC and OH violate existing naming conventions? What alternative do you suggest? 2) What is your source that West Huntington Bridge is the "common name." I agree with that take on the naming of the bridge (I am a local and that is what everyone calls it for the most part), but there are a couple people here that might object. The source would keep them quiet. Cheers and keep up the good work.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interstates in NY
I had a crazy idea tonight regarding every Interstate (well, for right now, every 3-digit Interstate) in New York. At the bottom of the Interstate infobox (on the 3-digits only, not the 2-digits unless they're divided by state), I would include a browse for New York routes, allowing for the Interstates to be linked from the browse of NY 390, for example regarding I-390, without "breaking" the browse function (i.e. prohibiting the reader from continually browsing routes in NY).

Since you have a wealth of knowledge regarding Interstates and the WP Interstate project, I felt it was necessary to obtain some feedback on this idea. -- T M F T - C 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PA Highways
Very interesting finds there. Thanks for the info and the heads-up. -- T M F T - C 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to (uh what) on the NY&O
I am redoing the entire New York & Ottawa Ry entry to the corrct information--Bonfire00 11:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC).--69.156.59.85 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources on NY&O
Citing my sources? Ok, I am the source. I've studied that rail line for years, I grew up beside it, my family worked on it and I work with a couple of other fellows whom also studied that particular line.--Bonfire00 11:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info
What about the source on the bridge? Cheers.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The only one that I can think of where the ceremonial name is used in the area is the Robert C. Byrd Bridge. It seems that folks around here respect Byrd and all he has brought to the area, but Rahall is seen as somewhat of a hack.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Ontario provincial highways
Hi, this is addressed to and. Please stop edit warring over this. I don't want to have to protect, or to block either of you. Please both stop edit warring and discuss the question maturely. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I came to ask you if this redirect for Chemin du Roi (Quebec) should go straight to Quebec route 138 but I see you are aware of the editor who created it and have probably seen it already, just in case tho'... --Alf melmac 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have Royal Road, in Persia and will have one for the Sahara, if all of the Chemin du Roi is part of 138 the new redirect is better pointing there as the (Quebec) bit is a bit specific. Chemin du Roi is still a virgin too... --Alf melmac 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility
On a separate matter, some of your edit summaries are a little over-the-top lately. "revert crap" and variants thereof seem to have become a recurring theme (revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY, revert crap,revert incorrect crap again, revert inclusion of crap,revert inclusion of incorrect crap,fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is).

Please stop this. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was crap... --SPUI (T - C) 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, you may want to consider this. I know this is just the way you talk and I personally don't mind it but it gives your antagonists ammunition for free. Haukur 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement requested
Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
 * --William Allen Simpson 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also don't take my inquiry personally please. It's nothing against you, I just want to know if we're all going to be subject to the letter of the Arbcom's ruling and probation or if there is leeway in it. Or on the darker side if it's going to be enforced unequally among the parties to the arbcom. I would hate to think I could edit war today and then next week you could get blocked for the same thing. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Illinois expressway vs. freeway
Done. Didn't know how to break it into sections, so I just threw it in there with usage terms. I'll see if I can grab a pic of the "Motorized vehicles, farm implements, pedestrians and bicyclists PROHIBITED" freeway sign for kicks. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

template njt-sta
spui, i'm reallly curious, why are you so bent on making this template "useful" for substing? Take a look at Template_substitution and let me know which one of those bullet points is applicable to the template. I'm not seeing one. lensovet 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In a way "Using certain templates hides wikitext from newcomers, which prevents them from learning how to use it." applies. If we use templates for what should be a simple link, we get scope creep of a sort, in that noobs see these templates and want to make their own, and soon we have templates for every possible link type, and what we have is much more complicated than simple linking. But really it's just easier to deal with simple links than with a template like this. --SPUI (T - C) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * eh, but then at arguments against substitution we also have
 * A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically-inclined.
 * Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation.
 * personally, I don't see the need for substing for three main reasons:
 * Without substing, we can have shorthand types and designations. We can also have a default value for the type, i.e. don't specify a type, and then station is automatically made into NJT
 * Not substing guarantees that the links will always look the same and will always link to the same article name format
 * Errors/typos are easier to fix, because you fix them in one place only, in contrast to (two places in) piped links
 * Regardless, I think that there is neither a strong case, based on "guidelines", as to whether or not we should subst. Therefore, I'd judge it on the usability merits. The way I see it, there's plenty to gain in terms of usability for the Non-substed version, and very little, if anything, for the substed one.


 * P.S. As for noobs, I doubt too many would use it anyway. lensovet 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * man, what is this? you don't see the need to subst, yet you edit the template to make it substable! where's the logic? If you don't see the need to subst, then leave the template alone and let me use it as I wish. at least me and temalakos will be fine with it.lensovet 01:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * cool, but that wasn't my point. my question isn't "why do you want to subst it in its current form", it's "why do you want this template, no matter what form it takes, to be substable". So go back and reread what I wrote in that light i guess.
 * Aye cpn, I have seen the light :\ lensovet 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother asking what the difference is or recalling that this template used to be used in another template. Here's my question: if only two people use the template, and you don't, and they don't want to it to be subst-friendly, can we just have our way? Nowhere does it say that templates can't be links. take a look at see also. lensovet 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highways
Hi I noticed you were interested in moving Wisconsin highways to "State Trunk Highway", but is that really beneficial to Wikipedia? I know that's one of two official designations, but I'd definitely not the one that would conform to the Common Names policy. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. When taken as a choice between your preferred Highway XX (Wisconsin) and the STH I do prefer yours. STH is the most official, but is definitely not a common term. Much less ambigious then California or Washington. I would support any moves to your preferred naming in this particular state. Also if you want to propose a change to the infobox to eliminate STH I would support that as well. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see that. What would be your feelings on including a sub line in the infobox however (probably a small unbolded font) with the common name in it? JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I suppose as long as both names are in the first sentence bolded it should be ok. And give the STH to the infobox and the article to the common name. Seems a good balance.

Re Freeway/motorway/whatever category
Thanks for the invitation to rejoin the discussion, but this looks controversial and I know I'm uninformed about it. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Michigan 59 and a request
Hey, thanks for pointing out the map problem with M-59, the GIS data I had was a few years old so I overlooked that one.

Also, while I can decipher the code of the Infobox road, it might be beneficial to others to document all the options and how to use them either between the noincludes or on the talk page.

Cheers. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Route 66 sortkey
Why did you remove the space in the sortkey? --SPUI (T - C) 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. My bot did it because when I coded it, I assumed that spaces at the start or end of a wikilink (or the components of a piped wikilink) were unneeded. I see now that this is not the case for category sortkeys. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll fix up my code to handle this properly. Cheers, CmdrObot 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Road Infobox
Heya, do me a favor and have a look at User:Stratosphere/InfoboxRoad and make any changes or add paramaters that I missed. Want to get it documented for the MI road project (in case other people join! *gasp*) and it'd be beneficial to the template talk page once it gets fleshed out. Thanks. Cheers! Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Two requests
One: can this talk page please be archived. I've got a fast connection, and it still takes time to load and scroll down here.

Two: the changes you have made to Minnesota state highway articles are causing consternation. Can we please have a discussion about the naming conventions of Minnesota road articles before moving any more or changing the names and links in articles. My father worked for the Minnesota Department of Transportation his entire career, and I assure you, neither he nor anyone else actually refers to them as "Trunk Highways" in conversation or common use, though they are designated "T.H." on maps. Jonathunder 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Highway 33
Then talk to User:Tony Sidaway. He's not hesitant to give out blocks.

Tell you what: I'm off the WP:MNSH project. You guys can figure it out yourselves. Since it's apparently impossible for me to come up with a highway name and a highway article that meets standards, it's a total waste of time for me to be doing articles about highways. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cfd2
That was a very good edit. Thank you. CfD seems to be one of the very few sane XfD pages out there - anything that will help keep it that way is a fantastic idea. TheGrappler 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't advise you to edit war over it, but I laid a comment down on the template talk page. CfD is so often used for "this category is complete crud, we need to rescope it or merge it into something else or just plain delete it (oh, and if you really do want to keep it, it still needs to be renamed)" that degenerating it into a keep vs delete thing (with all the horrid prospects of vote-counting) is just silly. I would hope, since there is a comment on the template talk page in support of your suggestion, that it will not simply be reverted without some discussion there. Like I said, I hope... this being Wikipedia, it doesn't mean it's gonna happen of course! TheGrappler 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, he did. I'm gonna go and moan on his talk page. TheGrappler 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 57 Proposed in Wisconsin?!
Where, may I ask did you find that out? Its interesting enough, but where is it going to go? -- master_son  Lets talk 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nevada State Historic Places
I'd still like to have some constructive discussion about what should be done with it first, if you don't mind. Circeus 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Route 33 (New Jersey)
I'm happy to keep the **** See also, although I don't see the point given that it's linked to in 3 other places as well. Haven't you been told before to stop using profanities in edit summaries? -- NORTH talk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohio expressway system
You're probably right, that the article in question is better as a redirect. Actually, if you had instead wanted to send it up to AfD, I would have backed you on it. My only objection was in creating a POV dispute where nothing existed in talk to resolve the apparent "dispute". This, in my opinion, would have done nothing but further the backlog on Category:NPOV disputes. Cheers! -- SwissCelt 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Route 3 (New Jersey)
Given the fact that Route 3 (New Jersey) crosses the New Jersey Turnpike twice at each spur, and that these crossings are in two different municipalities (East Rutherford and Secaucus), why not show it as I had edited and show both spurs spurs separately? My other question is why show the historic NJ 2 (now NJ 17), rather than US 1, as the predecessor route in the infobox. Given that the Route 17 infobox points back to NJ 1, there is no article that refers back to US 1 as a predecessor. Why not leave US 1 as the predecessor on NJ 3? Alansohn 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

<3 SPUI
Snakes. Snakes on a motherfucking internet tube! watch out for the dump truck!!!1 <3 Project2501a 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
Thanks for the point-out and for correcting. Can you look at WIS 47 as I got a blurb about the long cosigning but very shortened and brief. Is that a violation? Thanks in advance

It was a stupid mistake on my part and I should have known better on the two you saw. -- master_son  Lets talk 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota State Highway 33
This is addressed to and.

Guys, please stop edit warring over this article. I am watching and I expect you as two very experienced Wikipedians to know that you should resolve differences by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

MN-33 again
Nothing I've ever done on Wikipedia is ever good enough for you, is it? Not one single lousy edit I've ever done on this encyclopedia is ever good enough for you. Or User:Tony Sidaway, User:Cyde,  User:Kelly Martin, and anyone else who's ever made legitimate contributions to this "encyclopedia".

You're going to have to make another report to WP:AN/I, because the administrators (and the rest of the "good users" on here, unlike me) were busy debating about the existence of User:Kelly Martin/R. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1953 New Jersey state highway renumbering
I was curious about this edit you made. Since the article is about renumbering, doesn't it make much more sense to refer to the parkway and turnpike by their numbers, as that's what they were renumbered to? Take a look at this edit I made and see if you agree with my compromise. -- NORTH talk 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch, okay, did not know that. Thanks. -- NORTH talk 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Browse Templates
Please take a look at Interstate 90 at the browse blocks at the bottom. I added the Wisconsin browse box to the group and found structure and color to be differing from both Washington's and Massachusetts'. This I saw was also true of the Michigan edition. I thought I'd point it out to you. Thx -- master_son  Lets talk 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah - those are an older system still used for some states. In theory long routes like I-90 will eventually be split by state (like I-95 is). --SPUI (T - C) 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. Then another question.  What about intrastate interstates - How are they handled (Ex. I-43.)?

Re: this edit
Then be my guest and change it on every NYS article then. -- T M F T - C 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for coming across as a bit hasty earlier. I've since had some time to cool off and, after reading the WP:MoS, I'll make the necessary mods to the project standard and to the articles themselves as time permits. -- T M F T - C 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vermont Naming Convention
I'm planning on creating a Vermont WikiProject to organize the Vermont state highway articles. However, being from New York, I have no idea what Vermont routes should be named. Any ideas? -- T M F T - C 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Highways Revisited
Hello SPUI. I want to see where we agree and disagree on this subject, at least as far as textual terminology (as opposed to the article titles, which is another issue.) I believe you agree that State Highway x is a term in common use and can be bolded in the text, but you believe that Minnesota State Highway x is incorrect. I acknowledge that Trunk Highway x and TH x are correct and can also be bolded in the text. Is therefore our only point of disagreement whether the word "Minnesota" can or should appear before those terms? I am looking for consensus if we can achieve it. Kablammo 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) To keep the thread, reply here; I'll watch the page. Thanks. Kablammo 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's my experience that putting the state name before the type is often done to disambiguate. But on Wikipedia we disambiguate with parentheses. As MNDOT seems to use State Highway X a lot more than Minnesota State Highway X, I think we should go with that. --SPUI (T - C) 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that disambiguation can be but is not obligated to be done with parentheses. But won't it be easier to search for a Minnesota road without them?  In other words, won't it be more likely that someone will search for "Minnesota State Highway x" and go right to the site?
 * Also, there is no doubt that "Minnesota State Highway x" is an very common term here (and I'm sure you've Googled that), and is routinely used by MnDOT and other Minnesota state agencies in their publications as well as by the public, particularly in print (e.g., for directions). And given that common usage, why the need to delete it where it appears in the text?  It seems you are trying to impose consistent usage where consistency is absent.  Kablammo 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing says we can't make redirects. --SPUI (T - C) 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. But redirects can go in either direction.  Personally I think that both State Highway x (Minnesota) and Minnesota State Highway x are defensible.  But on the talk page all contributors except you agreed to stick with the existing usage of Minnesota State Highway x, which is the form already in use on Wikipedia in many Minnesota highway articles.  So that issue is settled.  Given that, and given the fact that this usage also is common usage in Minnesota and in official publications by this state, it is not helpful to have people going into the articles themselves and changing wording from Minnesota State Highway x to some variant without the Minnesota attributive in the compound noun.  It appears like an atttempt to accomplish indirectly what the participants in the discussion (other than you) agreed should not be done in the title.  I am not challenging your good faith, but I am suggesting that the articles with text using the term Minnesota State Highway x be left alone as they are consistent with common and official usage.  Kablammo 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Mom
 (Pardon the alarming title)  I noticed your tagging of Your Mom to request it be merged into The Dozens. Please see my response on the talk page. I look forward to your reply. Dgies 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox road for Vermont
Could you set up the necessary templates to use Infobox road with Vermont routes? The existing Infobox VT Route leaves much to be desired and, upon further inspection, looks like a predecessor to Infobox road. BTW, the new list page for Vermont routes is List of Routes in Vermont. Thanks. -- T M F T - C 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. One quick question though: why did you use Vermont highways for the link appearance versus something like Vermont Routes? -- T M F T - C 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Future plate
Hey, would you be able to make a "FUTURE" plate for interstates? That would allow us to convert the 'future interstate xxx' images to svg and not have to make new svgs with "future" instead of interstate. i hope that made sense. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject of plates, I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor as well, and make ALT, SPUR, and BYPASS plates for county routes? -- NORTH talk 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking over at Indiana State Road 265. I'd just as soon replace the png image with the regular 265 svg image, or even (now looking at it more) merge IN 265 with I-265 (which needs to be cleaned up; i'll stick that on my to-do list).  But this plate could be used elsewhere I suppose.  Just a thought. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... that was speedy! Thanks. -- NORTH talk 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

M-6 and browse box to M-7
I didn't put M-7 in the browse since it is decommissioned and redirects to M-86 and may catch unsuspecting people off guard. You've been around the roads project longer than I have...obviously the M-86 article will have a browse to 85 and 88, but if you're going to put M-7 in the browse and have it jump to M-86, what's the precedent for handling that? Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha?
WP:STEAM Haukur 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:FLWfan
You know, when you find a new user on Wikipedia, you could give him or her a welcome message, and maybe point them in the way of some helpful links, instead of just complaining that they created a bad article. Being helpful might actually help your karma on here a bit. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

FL Route Wishlist
Since you're being noted as the one to ask for FL Route shields, I'd like to make a short list of requests(some of which I've actually worked on):


 * FL 533
 * FL 566
 * FL 569
 * FL 575
 * FL 580A
 * FL 581
 * FL 584
 * FL 586
 * FL 590
 * FL 590A
 * FL 597
 * FL 616
 * FL 666
 * FL 674
 * FL 679
 * FL 682
 * FL 684
 * FL 686
 * FL 687
 * FL 688
 * FL 689
 * FL 693
 * FL 694
 * FL 699
 * FL 789
 * FL 849

Oh, BTW I'm sorry I couldn't make it to the Florida Roadgeek Convention yesterday. DanTD 10:17, 30 July 2006 (EST)

Nevada roads
Hi,

Please don't add those speedy tags again. Questions of fact, whether there was or was not a road by that name, belong at RfD, and are not covered under the CSDs. Persistently re-adding speedy deletion tags to redirects where they are inappropriate might eventually lead to block. Please comply, and list them at RfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is no question of fact. Someone erroneously made those redirects, and they should be deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)"


 * The person who made the redirect disagrees with your belief in this matter. You may: 1) Send the thing to RfD; or 2) ignore it, but if you replace the speedy tag again, you will be blocked for disruption.  Best wishes, Xoloz 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

H1
I'd send it to deletion review instead of TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut Sign Standards
I think this website might help. They appear to be ZIPped CAD drawings, but I can't open them. Perhaps there's a state highway sign in there somewhere. This might be helpful for making Connecticut route shields like the ones you've done for MA. Tckma 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Sicily
That's a mighty big flag of Sicily you have there. It's brilliant! --TinMan 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Threats to User:FLWfan and the rest of this highway crap
I'm supposed to be enjoying my vacation, not checking in on a bunch of playground psychotics who insist on doing everything short of move-warring over highway articles.

I've already admitted that my creation of Minnesota State Highway 33 was a mistake -- both under the name I previously created it as, and under its current name. I've already resigned from the Minnesota highways WikiProject. I still have FLWfan's talk page on my watchlist, though, and what I can't figure out is why you insist on giving him warnings. Yes, the guy is new and doesn't have the knowledge of all these ArbCom decisions that you've been under (and, indeed, that you provoked). I also don't understand why you're doing everything short of your probation -- including repeatedly changing the wording of Minnesota State Highway 33 -- to indicate that you just aren't happy with the standards that anyone else uses for naming and wording state highway articles. Maybe you have an answer for this. I'm not even sure if I want to know what your answer is at this point.

On the other hand, if you'd really like to drive everyone else off the highway articles -- or, indeed, off Wikipedia in general -- then you should make that clear to all of us who have oppressed you in your aims to make every highway article to your standard. I would like to know what your answer is to this.

Finally, archive your talk page already. I don't want to read six months of old messages over a crappy dialup line.

--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Split tag on Decommissioned state highways in New Jersey
I'm waiting to hear your rationale on this one. As I've told you before, whenever you tag an article for anything, it's best to leave your rationale on the talk page; that's why it has a link to the talk page in the tag. (By the way, the standard tag you put on the article doesn't make sense, as I don't see how a disambiguation page would help here.) So tell me... what's the rationale for splitting this into 18+ relatively non-expandable stubs? -- NORTH talk 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
Your current behavior is eerily similar to your behavior leading up to that lovely Arbcom case last month. Your comment "Your argument makes no sense. I modified the infobox, and will start implementing my plan." has encouraged me to join the current discussion regarding your behavior at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

In the future, it would be beneficial to all of us if you would refrain from pretending to seek consensus and then implementing your plan in spite of objection. If you are confused by my argument and would like me to explain it, you are more than welcome to ask me. However, our current path leads to mistakes I would like to avoid repeating. -- NORTH talk 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I do not have consensus for my plan. I didn't think there was anything to object to; clearly I was wrong.  However, I did not have any vocal objection to my plan before I implemented it.  You did.
 * While I do not have consensus, since I implemented my plan first, I do have status quo. It may please you to know that I will not make the same mistakes as my counterparts last time around, and will not engage in revert warring.  I am utterly shocked on the other hand that you have not made any changes to your modus operandi. -- NORTH talk 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point; however, your original implementation was far from complete, leaving holes in the loop, and failing to put boxes on several articles. My "status quo" comment referred the fact that my plan was the first to include all articles in a defined, hole-less order.  Semantics and wiki-lawyering? Probably.  But this does not change the fact that you re-implemented your plan in the face of objection, and that this is not the only issue that currently puts you in hot water. -- NORTH talk 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Probation violation
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of your probation as stated in Requests_for_arbitration/Highways ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Meat cleaver
Thanks, it's exactly right! —Scott5114↗ 09:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit
The information removed in this edit made no mention of "871". It only made mention of the fact that Interstates not part of the Thruway system have an "I" added to the number, which is the case all across New York, from non-Thruway I-87 (87I) to I-190 in Buffalo (190I). -- T M F T - C 13:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Turnpike InfoBox
SPUI, we've got a problem. It seems that "Nextbaxter" is adding in interchanges that are somewhat major, but it's making the box too long. What would you recommend to fix this problem? User talk:Mlaurenti 5 August, 2006  17:05 ETC


 * I second this problem. Nextbarker has been adding NJ routes to US route infoboxes despite numerous reverts by myself and Polaron. See the histories of U.S. Route 1 and U.S. Route 9. -- T M F T - C 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Interstate 287. -- T M F T - C 21:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
SPUI, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot
It was working per WP:CFD it was moving the contents to another category the cat may not exist quite yet but will shortly please see Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_27 for the disicision. my bot doesnt create Pages except under its namespace so the cats have to be created by other users. thanks Betacommand 00:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754
I've blocked Rschen7754 for 31 hours for making disruptive edits on multiple articles in accordance with his probation. So as not to have issues come up later, I've warned both of you not to continue similar edits (either edit-warring on one particular article as you did, or mass-editing as Rschen7754 did.) You can read my full comments at the relevant section here: Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Ral315 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy mother of fuck!
Massachusetts added exit numbers to MA 146 between the RI State line and the red light in Sutton. Sequential numbers. Also, the second half of the 146 freeway is now complete all the way to 290, though they're still working on the interchange with 290. Also, the only one side of the second half is open, so all traffic travels on the SB side with a double-yellow down the middle. --Analogdemon (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.--Shiroi Hane 01:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RIGIS maps
Hi - please have a look at your commons talk page -- commons:User:Duesentrieb 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

List of numbered routes in Delaware
An anonymous IP tried adding in the alternate US Routes on that page. Igorning the fact that he can't spell "alternate", what are the names of the articles? U.S. Route 13 (Alternate)(Delaware)? (obviously that looks wrong). I don't think this U.S. Alternate Route 13 (Delaware) is correct, either. atanamir 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you can win?
You know I support your method; but do you think you can convince enough people on that poll that your way is the best way? It seems everyone on that poll is rallying against you and/or are too stubborn to "see the light" atanamir 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Shield request
Could you create the following highway shields? State Highway 150 (Texas), State Highway 151 (Texas), State Highway 152 (Texas), and Farm to Market Road 1957. Thanks. --Holderca1 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a few more to request, the following Texas State Highway shields: 100-109, 121, 130-139, 206, 302, 317, 351; and Farm to Market Roads 774 & 1960. Thanks.  --Holderca1 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Strange MA 27 shield.jpg
Hello SPUI - I don't think this is a different style shield, the black rectangle with the numbers is superimposed above the white square, as if they nailed new numbers over the old ones instead of replacing the entire sign. --Schzmo 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuller Warren Bridge
The infoboxes at Fuller Warren Bridge are inaccurate. You might want to check these out and correct them.

By the way, you have a friend who agrees with you that I'm a very poor editor and that I've flouted rules. You might want to stop by his talk page and say "hi". --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Great redirect
On the off chance that no one has mentioned it, fuck a duck is indisputably the greatest redirect ever :) Raul654 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Infobox road" for Ohio
I've initiated discussions regarding some upgrades to Ohio state highway articles WikiProject Ohio State Highways (talk page), and would like your input. Also, if it is agreed upon, I've proposed using infobox road for Ohio instead of the custom infobox in use now. One possible issue is that when OH is entered as the type, the infobox shows "SR." While I'm not opposed to SR by any means, I'm not sure the masses would accept that over "OH." What do you think? I've also suggested a re-design on the route shields for Ohio, and the naming of them. I've re-done them from scratch – based on pictures available on the web. I've posted a few for review, and I'd really like to get some feedback on this as well. – Regards, Homefryes 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I accept your research as evidence that both OH and SR are used, and believe me, I certainly prefer the SR term – it's what I grew up with and it is commonly known. However, to differentiate between states' route names by more than just shield type (in the infobox), it just doesn't make sense, for example, to have SR on one side of the state line and PA on the other.  I'm thinking especially for state routes/highways that terminate at the state line.  Can you provide a logical argument (besides research disputes) as to why "OH" wouldn't be more useful than "SR" for the infobox?  Homefryes 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) → P.S. "OH" is what is currently used in the infobox that is in place for the OHSH project, and the purpose of my asking was because I'm proposing that infobox road be used instead.


 * I stand corrected. So what's your take on OH being used in the current infobox on the Ohio project then?  And have you any opinions on other proposals I've put forth on the project?  Homefryes 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken (though your tone leaves a lot to be desired). Please disregard the question, and accept my apologies for having wasted your time.  Homefryes 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:LIRR acc.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LIRR acc.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Homefryes


"Think for yourself"? "True consensus"? I'm surprised to hear you say things like that, given that you've already asserted that you're the expert on highways around here. If you already know all this stuff, why do you even allow other people to express their opinions? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Iowa 3D route markers and page structures - WikiProject Iowa State Highways
I am going to fire up a WikiProject for the Iowa state routes. Seeing that the only ones I see making edits on most of the page histories I searched so far are you and User:Iowahwyman (Jason Hancock - who is the Chris Bessert of Iowa of course) ;).

The few editors I noticed so far have left frustrated because of the standards problems. The only problem that I would see here is that if anyone was to change names or infobox structures right now, would that present an ethics problem? (blockable offenses in the Infobox case? I won't be doing any article renaming until the dreaded voting is decided) I would not think it would be - the only editor working on the box has left - an admin did a subst: on it as the most recent edit. Thus I think switching to Infobox road may not be a problem, please confirm...

Do you think we should make SVG images of the Circle signs for Iowa - specifications are in this pdf page PDF from Iowa DOT. I see that you have circle_sign_X.svg, but the 3ds are widened - Iowa's specs call for the same size for all markers (no values are above 1000).

a full list of highway numbers are at (page for.  about a third of the pages are written, but most do not follow our "standards for WP:USRD  They use some pagewide routebox, the 3D routes contain pngs (I think that's ok though, but I'm no image expert.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. -- master_son  Lets talk 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How does NJTP Exit 11 provide easy access to US 1 I mean the only big access Exit 11 can provide besides the parkway is US 9 and maybe 440?

Nextbarker 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

Infobox_road template standards
I have added a discussion thread at WT:NJSCR to address standards for NJ road infoboxes and invite your participation. Over the past several weeks, we have made tremendous progress in cleaning up the articles for the State highways in New Jersey, especially with the expansion and addition of infoboxes to most of these articles. However, there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what should be going in these infoboxes. I am creating this thread and inviting those users who have been active participants in editing these pages to come up with a mutually agreeable answer on the issues listed. I will take on the task of moderating this discussion, but I will add my 2 cents on these topics. We can add more questions if needed, but please, be civil. Alansohn 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps and more...
We're talking maps at day 2 of WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force (discussions). Also, as I get around to it, WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment is being development. Both are shamelessly stolen from WikiProject Trains. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tampa Crosstown Expressway
Thanks for those Crosstown Expressway photos SPUI. I was able to add a couple of them to the main article. However, I have recieved no inputs for my two article split proposals so far. If you could take a look at the proposals (and possibly recruit other Tampa area wikipedians to the page), I would highly appreciate it. Also, I need tremendous help with expanding the Clearwater Bayside Bridge article. If you could recruit some Pinellas County wikipedians to help expand that article, I would appreciate that as well. Wslupecki 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

Input requested (definition of a "lane")
I would appreciate your input on my 8/25/06 comment regarding what constitutes a lane on Talk:Interstate 75 in Georgia. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll
Regarding this edit: Please do not unilaterially mark this poll as rejected. That was not a helpful edit and the process is running as ArbCom intended. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (refactored, I prefer discussion be threaded)
 * ArbCom intended for there to be consensus. There is none. --SPUI (T - C) 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The assertion that there is no consensus is not necessarily true yet, it's too early in the process. Also, I'm not sure I agree that ArbCom intended there be consensus. Rather, they intended that a process be executed that got to a determination, whether or not it was a consensual one. Further, with 6 admins involved in evaluating things, it is not one person's place to make such a unilateral determination as "the proposal is rejected", and of all the people to make such a determination, you seem (given the ArbCom findings) particularly unsuited to make it. The edit you made was not helpful and I suggest you not do it again, as it is disruptive to do so. Consider this a more formal warning than the first message I left, since you're arguing the point with me instead of agreeing not to do it again. ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The heading of that part of the ArbCom decision is "consensus encouraged". What more do you need? --SPUI (T - C) 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Encouraged does not equal Required. ArbCom wants a decision on this matter, and some decision will be forthcoming soon. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that if the reviewing administrators arrive at a reasonable decision there will be a consensus that this decision should be adopted. --Tony Sidaway 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop asserting that consensus is required. It's not. What's required is reasonableness and common sense. Your edits are not helpful. Rather they are obstructive. Consider yourself warned. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider me warned that you're trying to obstruct arguments you disagree with. --SPUI (T - C) 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, your accusation is unreasonable, SPUI. Just let it go.  Friday (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. --SPUI (T - C) 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that you clearly intend not to stop being disruptive? ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been disruptive. Have you stopped beating your wife? --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize you are the ONLY ONE in opposition to finally putting this bullshit behind us and getting back to actually writing an encyclopedia. It's been 6 months man. Can't you concede that the majority doesn't agree with you and move on? I would in your place. This whole thing has gotten pathetically sad. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Polaron is my sockpuppet? --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * His objections are far different then yours, and are more geared toward being concerned that we left too MUCH ambiguity for people to weasle in more page moves. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "When you create a naming guideline that contradicts Common Names, the arguments will never stop. --Polaron" --SPUI (T - C) 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey at least Polaron is being civil about all of this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not my take on what you're doing. My take is that you are repeatedly asserting things about consensus that do not apply here, and obstructing others in working through the mess that you were in large part responsible for making. My take, further, is that you're not taking this warning seriously, but instead arguing about what the warning relates to. Continue being disruptive in this manner and you will be blocked, and I will immediately put it up on AN/I where I expect to get sustained. Last warning. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

15:18, 1 September 2006 Lar (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (ArbCom Probation Violation)

Blocked for 31 hours
You were warned. Then you were warned again and you argued about what the warning was about, meanwhile arguing with all and sundry on the discussion page.

You have been blocked for 31 hours to let you cool down a bit and to the the discussion proceed without disruption for a while. The action has been placed on WP:AN for review. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't see where I was being disruptive. If anything, your attempts to knock (and success of knocking) me out of the ring have been disruptive. --SPUI (T - C) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashi b aka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been blocked for taking part in these discussions. --SPUI (T - C) 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, you were blocked for (1) marking a discussion in progress as "rejected" (2) taking it to ANI simply to enlarge the flamewar (3) bickering needlessly with everyone over everything. Ashi b aka tock 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) was done once. When it was reverted I did no more. (2) was done to inform others of what had happened. I didn't do (3). So what's left is one edit I made ten hours ago. Hardly continuing disruption. --SPUI (T - C) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you really are honestly unable to see where you're being disruptive, I can see how that would be a problem. But, in that case, wouldn't the wisest course of action be taking other people's word for it when they tell you to cut it out?  Maybe you should try that.  Friday (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)