User talk:Cfeddse

Welcome!

Hi Cfeddse! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to slow down a little bit. You were trying to add a lot of content to Pennsylvania Turnpike all at once, and there were a lot of spelling and formatting errors in there. It may be smart to start smaller and work up to larger edits once you've built some editing and writing skills. Imzadi 1979 → 02:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i readded them without the typos. If I missed some, please help. Cfeddse (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the changes introduced just today and stopped counting at around a dozen misspellings before I just reverted everything back to a proper state. You're being overly ambitious to make that many changes with that error rate. Please slow down substantially before you edit the article again. You're creating a lot of work cleaning up things for other editors, and frankly, it's going to be easier to just remove everything you're adding than to try to sort through it all and apply corrections. It appears that this is an issue on more than one article as well from the comments here. Imzadi 1979 → 19:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What other than typos are you talking about? Cfeddse (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your edits:

"estmated"
"Mutiple imprvemnets"
"cmprsion"
"strech"
"raod"
"strcutures"
At least one case of a "form" that should be a "from"
"the Interchange" (shouldn't be capitalized in that form)

That's just in one paragraph. I found more in other paragraphs, including "Delalware River"

There was also a mention of the FHWA for a decision in 1964; that agency wasn't created until 1966. Later on, I found "replaceing" and a few other typos.

There were missing spaces jamming a parenthetical into the preceding word, double spaces that aren't needed and other formatting errors, also in that same paragraph. There were three broken footnotes plus three URL/link-only citations with no additional details. Imzadi 1979 → 19:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When your referring to me capsizing interchange, are you also referring to when its a specific one as well? (i.e New Stanton Interchange) Because if so, isn't that a location, and as such should be capitalized? What you're referring to was an accident though. And also, I wasn't the one who wrote the FHWA stuff, that was from an older revision, I only added it to add a detail. Cfeddse (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Stanton Interchange" is correct but "the Interchange" is not. Without the extra detail, it's not a proper name but a generic name. In that latter case, the word should not be capitalized.

There's still the issues of a lot of typos and other errors being introduced, so I again, I suggest as a new editor that you crawl before you walk and walk before you run. That is unless you're not a new editor, then I'd wonder why you have a new account. Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm CFA. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Blue Mountain (Pennsylvania), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. C F A 💬 15:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why? It already isn't sourced, not like it matters. Cfeddse (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Star Memorial Bridge

The issue was not the information you added - the issue was the various errors you introduced. "It" was misspelled, "original" was capitalized for no reason, a section header was removed, and the citation was a bare url rather than being properly formatted. You can see here how I fixed these issues. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garden State Parkway

To add on to the discussion above, I have removed your recent additions to Garden State Parkway because they would require far too much cleanup work. Typos and other errors will happen, but the onus is on the contributing editor to do a base level of troubleshooting, such as running a spellcheck, using Preview to make sure there are no big red formatting errors, etc.

I am willing to do a certain amount of cleanup work (as are many other editors), but I often could not tell what you meant - as, for instance, with the phrase "the improvement was such full in reducing congestion".

Please take your time and perhaps have someone else look over your work before submitting it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don’t know how to write that paragraph without it being a run on, because it would basically be repeating the same thing for every exit they’re planning on improving, because for most of them there just adding in new ramps. Cfeddse (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me once again reiterate the need to have you spell check and proofread your edits before saving them.

As for that one paragraph you mention, @Cfeddse, maybe you need to approach that content differently. We don't need to document every single minor change to a highway. Sometimes it's appropriate to summarize and gloss over the details to make it readable and interesting on the part of our readers. Generally speaking, we don't cover a lot of minor maintenance-type changes on a highway, like repainting or replacing signage. If there's an actual change, like renumbering exits, then yes we can cover that detail. At the end of the day, we need to have something that a reader can actually read. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps relevant, there is a related discussion on my Talk page here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that paragraph only mentioned improvements to the exits, mostly adding new connections to the ones which are ideitical to how thy were in the 1950s. It featured nothing about the regular maintenance you are talking about. Cfeddse (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I offered that as an example. Even so, it may be possible to simplify the text you're trying to write and gloss over specific details while still getting across the point that various interchanges had connections added to them. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more low-quality editing happening at New Jersey Turnpike. Please proofread and spell check your edits. Please stop adding bare URL citations. Relying on others to clean up after your editing is not a productive use of our time here. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:That guy who plays games per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/That guy who plays games. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]