User talk:NE2/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Eastern Suburbs / Illawarra Line FAC

Hi NE2, just thought I'd let you know that I've done some more work on the article in question if you want to check it and make some more comments. The annoying bit at the beginning is still not fixed, but I'll get onto it. I also wanted to thank you for giving helpful advice on the article. - I've been really discouraged and even disgusted by the actions of another editor on that FAC, but you have kept my faith in Wikipedia. Thanks. JROBBO 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:NYCS

I am planning to convert {{NYCS}} to call on New York City Subway. There is no need to redirect {{NYCS}} to {{NYCS service}}. Besides, why do so just for less typing? Typing 7 extra characters just takes 2 seconds. That's just a sign of laziness. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Typing out New York City Subway and {{NYCS service}} are two different things. Maybe I went overboard when I said a sign of laziness. But there is no need for redirects anyway. I try to avoid those as much as possible. It's more efficient to have templates link/redirect to a single page. Templates calling for single templates have been discouraged, and I don't see any compelling reason to do so now.

Besides, consensus was already reached to use {{NYCS service}}, and {{NYCS}} doesn't support most of the features {{NYCS service}} has anyway. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 4#NYCS Templates, revisited. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the {{NYCS}} template has been converted to link to New York City Subway. There is no template for that anyway. Wouldn't it make sense to have a template for that? There's a template for the IRT, the BMT, the IND, the LIRR, and Metro-North. None for NYCS until recently. {{NYCS service}} has already replaced the other templates, thanks to my bot, and converting the templates again would just be time-wasting. {{NYCS}} should link to NYCS. {{NYCS service}} has deprecated the others. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Subway template issue

I am making a good-faith attempt to make some suggestions that will help you become a constructive part of the subway project. At some point, if it seems a waste of time, I'll stop making such suggestions.

As you know, I do not agree with 100% of the decisions that have been made on the Subways project. I learned this myself after a feud in December. But I do recognize that it is a group effort, and it can't always go my way. If I put up a suggestion for discussion, and there is significant opposition, I won't just make the change anyway.

At the moment, I don't consider you a vandal. But I can't conceive of why you put a deletion proposal on the Subway project talk page, and with no decision made, you went ahead and nominated the templates. When you make a proposal, you need to allow a reasonable time (at least a day) for people to respond. And when the response isn't favorable, you need to take it seriously. You'll note that I tried to put the templates back the way they were, although again, we're right back where we started — except that your own credibility may been damaged.

Similarly, I proposed a test category I was in the middle of for deletion for station transfer-point complexes. Although I speedied it at the end, still, people shouldn't always have the automatic go-ahead for serious situations, for any type of Xfd.

Both of these incidents are indicative of not being willing/able to work on a team. When you make a suggestion, and no consensus isn't reached yet, you need to allow some sort of duration of time to let people say what they have to say. Or, if you cannot understand it, you need to at least accept that people may not care on that particular idea, and move on.

After you build up credibility by playing nice in the sandbox, people will start to take your views more seriously. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will also be closing the nomination, as you never bothered to ask anyone else their opinion, as you went ahead and nominated it for deletion anyway. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the nomination. In the future please do not make choices on your own when it comes to Xfds. It is always important to get feedback from other people and get their opinions, instead of making choices not suppoted by the community. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to, could I reopen an obviously improperly closed debate simply by removing the tags? Or once it's been closed does it have to go through WP:DRV no matter what? -- NORTH ^talk 03:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These templates are necessary, in any form. The point is, well, I've stated my opinions above.repeatedly. Point blank. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, seriously—no they're not. We could very easily get by without them. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 10:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller court martial deletion review

Thanks for your input!

   Abu ali 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

NYCS logo

Do you know where that logo on New York City Subway came from? Frankly, it's pretty crappy. Maybe we can obtain another image that has higher resolution. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

R160A, and DCarltonsm

It's great that you went by the book and reported the mess with R160A (New York City Subway car) and User:DCarltonsm to WP:ANI, but I think you would have gotten quicker results by reporting the incidents to WT:NYCPT. We have two admins who regularly contribute (me and User:Alphachimp) and who are also intimately familiar with the history of the project; we could have taken care of things right away. But yeah, I'm just letting you know, for future consideration. Thanks, Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've fixed the R160A mess and banned DCarltonsm as a disruptive sockpuppet of User:DCarltonsm@msn.com, who had been banned a few months ago. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:TWP

Updates complete. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Old images donated to a library

Ok, that is good you got some of the free photos. Maybe just one photo of the locomotive could suffice, because while FA's need to have at least one illustration, maybe two, they either need to be under a free license or pretty much try to state why we need it with a fair use rational. BTW, I would like to continue the discussion here or my talk page, since it seems that your questions are getting lost very easily due to recent events on the fair use talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if you are trying to make Long Island Rail Road a featured article, I would try to start sourcing the information "freight service" and make a lot of the red links either blue or unlink them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

DCarltonsm again

I'll bring it up to Larry. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rules

I am only trying to let you understand how people work on Wikipedia. You may not have been around as long as I have, but I'm not perfect either. We all make mistakes, and I'm willing to correct any mishaps I've made. I do want us to work together and be the best co-workers as possible. But I guess that we should always try to engage in some sort of discussion. Discussing opinions is always best, not edit summaries. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, your article writing is great, and I commend you for that. But sometimes Wikipedia gets to you, and often arguments and vandals, trools, shills get to you, and it feels like there is only one person who is able to fix all this. Your work is great, I congratulate you 100%, but no one can spend their whole life contributing. I'll be taking a break for sometime, but it's not your fault, I promise. I just feel like I should have been spending more time editing good/featured articles, rather than fixing mediocre edits. Signing off, --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Shunpiking

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Without a reliable published source stating that these "shunpiking" routes are commonly used, describing them is original research. Thank you. --NE2 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Statements regarding alternative routes are no more original research than listings of exits and connecting roadways. Remove statements re frequency of use of alternative routes if you feel they are unsupported. Alansohn 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the route implies that it is a commonly used one, since otherwise it wouldn't be a notable route. Read specifically Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. --NE2 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Every statement about every route in the world that mentions any other route would by your definition violate Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I have read it and am more than familiar with it. Your interpretation does not meet any of the wording. The statement that there are alternative routes is not a synthesis, by any definition of the term. Alansohn 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement that these are alternate routes used for shunpiking is original research, since no sources are given that say that. Without the fact that they are used for shunpiking, it's just a list of random parallel routes, and shouldn't be under a section on shunpiking. --NE2 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Most bridge and tunnel articles include infoboxes that list parallel crossings, yet I have never heard an argument that these listings are original research, as the alternative crossings upstream and downstream are not specified in a source or that by definition they are frequently used routes as the basis of a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". The statement that there are parallel or alternative routes are not random. If you have an issue with the title or wording, go ahead and make changes, but removal of useful information is unjustified. Alansohn 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC for BWCNY

Good Evening. An RfC has been initiated for the actions of BWCNY at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BWCNY. I noticed that you have attempted to help this user, I would like for you to be aware of this and please provide input on this RfC. Rob110178 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Society Hill

I fail to see what was gained by your whole series of moves relating to "Society Hill, New Jersey", nor why you would go ahead with these changes without consulting any other participants who have edited these and other New Jersey articles. The "Society Hill, New Jersey" article you moved to Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey is a census-designated place recognized by the United States Census Bureau. Society Hill, Jersey City, the other Society Hill in New Jersey, is a neighborhood in Jersey City and the article exists solely within the loop of Jersey City neighborhood articles. To have "Society Hill, New Jersey" redirect to the Society Hill disambiguation page only adds confusion, without helping anyone. All that would have been necessary was to keep the article titles unchanged, adding disambiguation lines to each article referencing the Jersey City neighborhood on the CDP article and vice versa. Your "solution" generated a lot of utterly unnecessary work and sows much confusion with little benefit to a person who ends up on a disambiguation page for no valid reason. I would strongly suggest remembering that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort before going off on these solo forays, and making use of WP:NJ, which was designed to address such issues. Please think before you act next time, try to reach some sort of consensus, and undo the damage that has already been done. Alansohn 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I did all the "unnecessary work" - changing about 4 links. No consensus is required to be bold and make matters easier for an editor who is linking to Society Hill, New Jersey and meaning the Jersey City one. --NE2 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Every single person who types in Society Hill, New Jersey will now get a disambiguation page, not one of the articles in question. No one will ever go directly to Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey as an article. Attempts at being bold are great, but this one accomplishes nothing. Assuming that half the people are looking for the CDP and half for the Jersey City neighborhood, under my suggestion half the people find the right article and half are one click away explained on the top of the article. You now force everyone to look through a list of four options on a disambiguation page. Unless you will clean this situation up yourself, or you have a meaningful objection to this alternative, I will be bold and revert the changes. Alansohn 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I wonder how many people would actually type in Society Hill, New Jersey rather than Society Hill. On the other hand, if I had not been so careful, Journal Square Transportation Center would link to the Middlesex County place, and it probably would not have been fixed. --NE2 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • We already have two Society Hills in New Jersey and two elsewhere; it's not that uncommon a place name that people might qualify it. If your issue was on the JSTC article, all you needed to do was to change Society Hill, New Jersey to Society Hill, Jersey City and you would have accomplished your goal without any negatives. Again, unless you are willing to clean this situation up yourself, or you have a meaningful objection to my proposed alternative, I will be bold and do the "unnecessary work" needed revert the changes. Please try to take a step back and see if your solution actually solves the problem you thought existed. Alansohn 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Never mind. It's done. 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Hello, NE2. It appears that you copied and pasted Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey to Society Hill, New Jersey. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, NE2 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I have indicated to you why your moves were counterproductive. The manner in which you shoved your changes through makes it difficult to undo your mess. I sincerely hope that you will take the necessary effort to undo the damage you have caused. Again, I encourage you to try to take a step back and see if your solution actually solves the problem you thought existed. If you honestly feel that your solution addresses the issue better than my alternative, I'd love to hear a better explanation of why it should be retained. Other than that, I would hope that you would try to reach a consensus, rather than go Rambo to shove your option through. Alansohn 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
              • By your persistent refusal to justify your actions in the face of a clear explanation of why it was counterproductive and unnecessary, you are clearly demonstrating that your actions were in breathtakingly bad faith. You have needlessly created a situation in which your arrogant changes -- shoved through without any effort to consider alternatives or reach consensus -- now requires an extensive bureaucratic process to undo your mess. Rather than try to address a solution, you have maliciously reverted changes that would clean up the disaster you have foisted on all other users. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that you have created situations of this type.
                • The issue is not with what you were trying to do. The issue is that your solution poorly addresses the problem and creates far more confusion than it could possibly solve, and was done without any effort whatsoever to reach out to try to find a productive solution. Your arrogant use of bureaucratic tactics to impose your solution and a refusal to address the issues raised further demonstrates that the actions you took were in likely bad faith. Again, I encourage you to step back and to see how your "solution" makes it less likely for anyone to find the article they were seeking. In the future, I sincerely hope that you will learn a desperately needed lesson and try to work as part of a group reaching mutual consensus, without trying to ram down your ill-conceived ideas on other Wikipedia users. Alansohn 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Can all of those who are making personal attacks please stop? Doing so is counterproductive to the building of our encyclopedia. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging 1946 Huntington Planning Map

I'd love to argue your recent tagging of 1946 Huntington Planning Map with the 'original research' and 'move to commons' tags, however you've made this impossible by not explaining your actions to other editors in the first place. The tag you added specifically says "See the talk page for details" and yet you left no details to explain your reasoning to anybody else. It's hard to argue against nothing. I would appreciate it if you finished that task so that other editors could properly react to your suggestions. Thank you. Fife Club 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Manhattan Streets

Template:Manhattan Streets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --talk to Ytny 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd enjoy this

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=63.747817~-68.480208&style=r&lvl=15&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000 --Analogdemon (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

re: FHWA font samples

Oh, what an embarassing typo. I'll try to fix it as soon as i find some time. Thanks ofr telling me atanamir 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alfred E.->Alfred H. Smith

Thanks for your Alfred E. to Alfred H. Smith changes. This is my first edit. I was impressed with how quickly someone (you!) picked up on the correction. Do the changes propogate through to ask.com and the other multitudes of sites that duplicate Wikipedia articles or sections thereof?

The great highway deletion debates

has anyone ever noticed something about the experience of these users who are putting up the AfDs like User:Inkpaduta. Who are they to come in do this? Many of them have hardly been here long enough. • master_son^{Lets talk} 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note about that user: It's not just road articles that he has decided after a week on Wikipedia should all be deleted to satisfy his personal preference. See this discussion on an article I researched and wrote to exemplary standards, then put up for DYK only to have someone flip out on it then. Daniel Case 04:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

SEPTA "Surface" routes

I don't think that the streetcar routes 10, 11, 13, 15, 34, and 36 should be included on the list of SEPTA City Transit Division "surface" routes. The subway-surface lines and the Route 15 streetcar have their own separate stubs from the main SEPTA article and adding them to this list, in my opinion, is redundant. If you were going to consider adding the streetcar routes to the surface route pages, then I think it should've gone to discussion first or at the very least separated from the bus routes. Ctrabs74 12:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In reciept of your last message. Seeing as you have the trackless routes separated (at least for now) would you at least be willing to do the same for the streetcar routes? Ctrabs74 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

multiplex

1. What are your grounds for calling this use of "multiplex" a neologism? In this context it's a very subjectively defined term, and what I see elsewhere on your user page suggests that ... you just don't like it being used this way, because you want "duplex" to mean "house with two separate units", the actual disambiguation page notwithstanding.

1. As such, Googling on multiplex+combination+highway+route returns about 78,000 hits. Some are from roadfan sites, some are articles here or mirrors but I would suggest that a term within wide use in a fan community is no longer a neologism. Otherwise there are a lot of articles about Star Wars and Star Trek that would have to be rewritten.

1. This seems to have been done without getting any consensus from the road projects pages.

1. In some cases [1], the edits have removed links to the actual concurrency article as well. This, to me, counts as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

1. The sub-uses "triplex" and "duplex" allow for much clearer distinctions of meaning and more elegant writing than just sticking with "concurrency" all the time. Compare "At the center of Podunk, the triplex with Route X and the road becomes a duplex with Route Y" with "At the center of Podunk, the X/Y/Z concurrency ends but the Y/Z concurrency continues".

1. It seems to be consistent with the use of the same term within the scientific and technical communities.

1. As long as the term is linked to concurrency (road) at least once in any article in which it appears, I doubt any reader will be confused.

1. I really think this is locking the barn door after someone thinks the horse got stolen, if you want to know the truth. But if we must, let's not use "concurrency" so exclusively, either. As I said elsewhere, New York's DOT uses "overlap" in a lot of its official road documents. We should thus allow ourselves to be flexible. And let's get some consensus that this counts as a neologism from the project pages first. Daniel Case 20:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiplex is not a neologism in the sense of a newly-coined word that has never been in existence or use before. It is a new usage for an existing word. There is a distinction, and a difference.

I won't press this any further at the moment, at least not in the article text (I think I should raise on the WP:NEO talk page, actually), but would you and your sidekick Krimpet at least have the decency to go around and follow my lead and add "double-route" and "triple-route" to every use of concurrency you've introduced where such a distinction is necessary so that readers from outside the roadfan community (you know, the ones who clearly can't intuit what "triplex" and "duplex" meant) aren't confused? Daniel Case 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And see the Merriam-Webster definition of "multiplex": "being or relating to a system of transmitting several messages or signals simultaneously on the same circuit or channel". I think that's broad enough. Daniel Case 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1	10 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is challenged Important deletion debates Featured subproject Featured member From the editor
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/N

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. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Joke in Template:Infobox Bridge

I assume this was a joke. Someone finally noticed and I have removed it. —Dgies^t c 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not my addition; it was added by Lar in this edit. --NE2 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks more like in trying to revert some other changes you restored the troll someone else had already removed. —Dgies^t c 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re; List of Long Island Rail Road stations

Check the link from the "Unofficial LIRR website," that I added below:

http://www.lirrhistory.com/mainsta.html

Riverhead - The first picture is the high level platform currently in use. The brick station in the second picture, now under restoration, was built in 1910, replacing a wooden 1870 station, which is shown in the third (Ron Ziel collection).

In other words, the 1910 station replaced the 1870 station. DanTD 06:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just thought "present" meant that the stations are still currently operating. You've got a lot of instances where stations were rebuilt, renovated, relocated, burned down, trashed by vandals, and merely replaced with sheltered platforms. Jamaica and Patchogue are two examples, but there are plenty of others. DanTD 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't the multiple year spans that already exist serve that purpose? DanTD 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down to Stewart Manor(for example), then check this link(http://www.lirrhistory.com/hempsta.html). Then you'll understand what I mean. DanTD 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Help desk#Wiki Table in If statement

Thank you for the information. It is highly appreciated. Szhaider 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Randomish question unrelated to roads

As someone who's definitely more of an expert than I am on redirects, disambiguation, etc., I'm wondering if you'd be willing to comment on the RFD on Democrat Party (United States). It doesn't matter whether you comment as part of the RFD or on my talk page, I'm just looking for someone to either confirm or correct my logic. -- NORTH ^talk 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:OhioTurnpike.svg

It's not a fair-use image though. It's released into the public domain, therefore WP:FUC does not apply. See my inquiry on the subject here and the editor's reply here. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would just bring up Toll Road shields in general. Or all (non-IH/US/State) shields. Just look at usage of Image:Indiana Toll Road logo 1968.png, and other such shields on the Indiana Toll Road page. I don't think it's a big deal. But that's not up to me to decide. Either way, I have a favour to ask. I've been working on a New Jersey Turnpike SVG image and a Capital Beltway SVG image.

I finished the NJTP image, it just needs to be uploaded, and I started on the Beltway image. I just traced the current images I had on file, the original Capital Beltway image is still under the unfinished svg image. I was hoping you could finish the CapBW logo and upload them as SVG images if you have a chance; I have a hard time with that: it never works. The large P needs some rounding off at the top I think... If you have some time and want to work some magic with the Capital Beltway image, knock yourself out. If not, I can finish it, it'll just be a while. Oh yeah, the problem with the image I'm tracing for the Capital Beltway was that the creator of that file would let Wikipedia use it, but wouldn't release it as a free image. I don't know who actually owns it, although since it's an Inter-state route, I'd believe congress, which would make it free. The file can be found here (download). That download should work. Take care. --MPD ^{T / C} 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reasoning given as to why it should be removed from the Interstate 76 (east) article doesn't relate to the discussion about the copyright of the shield image. Personally, I think any debate about Toll Road shields is unnecessary. --myselfalso 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with edits

Your edits are leaving a space between the size and closing parenthesis: Main Line (Pittsburgh to St. Louis) --NE2 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you input, I had completely overlooked that. I've updated the script. Thanks, Dispenser 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Just saying, you beat me to it. Just look below your comment. Simply south 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

LIRR infobox

Is there some way you can work in an image field? I'd try my self, but I'm not good with code. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cult classic

The page lists are no more structured than a repository. The page needs a full overhaul and the examples need to be greatly downsized or, as a suggested before, delete the existing page and start it from scratch (see Wikipedia:Translation/Cult classic). Unless you plan to pick which examples to remove, I'm going to put back the deletion proposal. --Yono 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Ridge Route as this week's WP:USRD/AID winner

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects

Where do I have to go to to fix them? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'll be sure to remember this in the future. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WT:USRD#Photo galleries?

I noticed you chimed in on the discussion I had with Alansohn about photo galleries. Before I read your comment, I took the discussion to WT:USRD, and I'd love if you contributed there as well. -- NORTH ^talk 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

not sure why...

no line breaks makes it easier, but whatever.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's more like turning one page; when it's all bunched together I have to scan through a bunch of gobbly gook, rather than one line till I get to the </ref> tag. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville Skyway

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. dcandeto 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid using misleading edit summaries (as in this edit). Thank you. dcandeto 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

File:New Jersey blank.svg The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2	24 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is upheld Deletion debates Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article Featured subproject U.S. Roads IRC channel created Featured member Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

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. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AWB for scaps

When and if you get a chance, can you run AWB for instances of {{scaps}} in Interstate 40 in North Carolina, and Interstate 77 in North Carolina exit lists? Appreciate it. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indiana State Road 912

You are good. After you revised the references in the East Chicago-Gary area, I remembered that my father had worked at Purex on Cline Avenue in East Chicago, and that factory remained there after the expressway was constructed, so you are right about the frontage road being old Cline. Of course, that personal experience can't go on the main page, and we know certain people who would not tolerate it. Busjack 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Airport Interchange

You commented at the AfD, but did not make an explicit vote. If I may suggest revisiting the Newark Airport Interchange article and the concerns raised in the AfD and voting explicitly either way to ensure that your voice is heard. Alansohn 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to COTA bus image

It seems you are involved in an edit-war with Polypmaster on the image: File:Cota bus.jpg. What's going on here? I viewed his talk page. He claims that he has obtained proper permission, and yet you do not acknowledge this, and you have repeatedly reverted the image's license just because of the notice on the COTA website. A bot has now deleted the image from the article. If you have a problem with the way he obtained permission or need documentation, you should engage in constructive discussion with him instead of just engaging in an edit war. I see on his talk page that you have not responded to his last comment or given him constructive suggestions of what to do--in the absence of doing this I think we should revert back to his state. Cazort 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, I read farther in the discussion...rather unorganized it is. Still, it seems that the issue was resolved and yet the image is still being deleted? I have a huge library of bus pics that I've personally taken, maybe I should just add my photo if the copyright issues are still not worked out. Cazort 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Redirect needs deleting

Done. Slambo (Speak) 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Metro north commuter council

It seems to me that the articles are greatly enhanced by having links to whatever would be obviously useful to readers interested in the topic. It isn't as if these articles are long. The commuter council is an official organization that works with Metro-North, meeting with Metro-North officials at each regular meeting, and the link could be valuable to many readers. (I'm not affiliated with the council or the railroad in any way.) Noroton 13:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that once an obviously useful link is there every other link will flood in. And if the external links section did become cluttered, that would be better than not having links that are obviously useful. The articles are for the convenience of readers, not the convenience of editors, and the inconvenience of removing the occasional wrongheaded decision to include a link is not all that much. Besides, it's overwhelmingly obvious that the Commuter Council link is useful. Let's at least include the overwhelmingly obvious links.Noroton 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You might go to the Metro-North article, but others shouldn't have to go to a much bigger article to chance upon a valuable link. The commuter council Web site has information that is likely to pertain to each local station, but in Web pages that change frequently. A link that takes up little space and provides so much value to readers is worth keeping. Have you seen the condition of the stations on the New Haven line? Have you tried parking at those stations? Have you stood in the cold in front of a locked station in the winter? Give the commuters at these stations an easier time finding the links with their numb fingers. Noroton 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that page existed. Are there similar pages for the other stations? Wherever there are, I think that would be a fine substitute. If theres some kind of contents page for links to commuter-council web pages for individual stations, and you can provide it to me, I'll substitute them at each Wikipedia station article for the links to the main commuter council page. Sound good? Noroton 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just used it, too. It seems to only apply to Noroton Heights.Noroton 14:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They have meetings constantly. Let the commuters who are more interested look up the meeting minutes. You're demonstrating the usefulness of the link, by the way. The commuter council is one of the links that a large number of the readers would find useful for reasons related to the station articles themselves. And as of now there is only one Greenwich rail station with an article. With the effort we've both spent in this conversation, we could have had the other two articles written by now. Noroton 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that each month there will be another Metro North Commuter Council meeting with more minutes posted on the Web site. Of course appropriate information should be incorporated from that source to those articles, but that's not the question. The question is whether there should be a link or not, and the fact that the information hasn't been incorporated in the articles is another reason for the link. Your case would be a lot stronger if we had massive, flabby articles about rail stations. We don't. We have thin, starving, underfed, "underwritten" rail station articles and the solution is not to put them on a diet. Noroton 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Topix

See the External links guideline, "What to link" second bulleted item: "useful, tasteful, informative, factual; also see item #2 in that section. Noroton 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:66.4.225.11

Hi. Removing the old warnings seems neither here nor there to me, but I don't see any reason why the notice about it being a shared school ip# should have been removed from User talk:66.4.225.11. I therefore put it back. If it is inaccurate or there's another reason you think it shouldn't be there, please explain. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wheelchair.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wheelchair.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 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. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, you reviewed Pennsylvania Route 65 and failed it becuase of its references and history. I made the changes and is there a way someone could review it without me waiting all of those days again? Or you could do it, please? Respond at User talk:JohnnyAlbert10 if you want, thanks. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit to hard on me here. Number 1, it does have a newspaper article as a ref, 2. it does have a map as a ref. So what else, besides I-476 became a good article without a newspaper article. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i said anything bad above, and i'm sorry to bother you too, but please look at PA 65 now i made changes and tell me which sites are personal and which aren't. I worked really hard on this route and please understand PA 65 has no other websites than the ones i have listed. Whatever you tell me now after checking it i'll have to accept. -- JohnnyAlbert10 13:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea, how about i use the PA Official map and Randmcnally as refs and leave mapquest as well. But the length is an issue. The only ref for the length is pahighways and you said is a personal one. -- JohnnyAlbert10 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

?

I dont know, Its just a monobook script in the script list and I added it to my monobook. Its supposed to remove excess whitespace-several spaces between words &/or sommeone pressing return 3 times then starting a new paragraph. I don't mean for there to be a problem. Follow the link in the history and read the description of the tool, if you know javascript maybe it could be fixed but I dont know enough to change a lot. Thank you for letting me know though, I'll take a look at the script and see what I can do, -- Darkest Hour 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your response on Image talk:I-378.jpg. -- NORTH ^talk 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3	10 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Inactivity? Deletion debates Article Improvement Drive Featured subproject Good and Featured Articles Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

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.

Active user verification

Hello, NE2. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Greenpoint Line

Could you explain the importance of this? Downy 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yes, but does that give it enough importance? Considering it probably is there to stay, as that template needs the reds filling, I'll stay outta it. I tend to be wrong these days. ;) Downy 09:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Okie dokie. Downy 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Ideogram borderline personal attacks

Can you stop these talk page comment removals: [2]

I agree it's a borderline personal attack, but that was not the right response.

The practice is controversial ( WP:RPA ) and often abused, and they're pretty mild PA's anyways. You didn't even bother to leave him a talk page warning first, which is strongly preferred as the first (and second and third) response to such.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Keeping conversations on track" is not an approved WP activity. Participants are free to make conversational mistakes or abuses. The community is free to tell them not to, and impose penalties if they keep it up, but censorship has to be reserved for more severe things than mild personal attacks. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Myrtle Avenue Line (surface)

Please read WP:MOS and WP:DAB carefully. Do not revert somebody else's edit because you said so. There is no such your article in Wikipedia. Please note that you almost breach WP:3RR. — Indon (reply) — 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read overlinking. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the article confuses the reader with too many links. Please read the ratio. — Indon (reply) — 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC) And the gap between duplicate links although they are in different subsection is too close for reader to forget about that link. — Indon (reply) — 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a reader and I am confused with too many links just to point to the same place. — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How can a reader not to click if you put the same link so many times with different texts?? — Indon (reply) — 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)