User talk:Damon207/Archive 2

Jctint template tip

When disambiguating a township, you don't need to switch to "location_special" and manually link it. You can just add the parameter "|ctdab=Aitkin" (or whatever county) and the template will take care of it. --Sable232 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will remember that for future reference. --Damon207 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of County Road 61 (Lake County, Minnesota)

The article County Road 61 (Lake County, Minnesota) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable county highway that does not pass the WP:GNG or USRD notability guidelines as a standalone article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Admr Boltz 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Please don't "fix" links to redirects, like you've done here and here. This is especially true for Constitutional Route, as in the future it will either be created as an article or redirect to a different page once I can create a suitable list of 1920 highways and clean up the Legislative route (Minnesota) article.

See WP:R#NOTBROKEN. --Sable232 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the heads up. --Damon207 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Minnesota Constitutional Route"

I noticed you added "Minnesota" to several articles before the term Constitutional Route. This is unnecessary wordiness; it should be expected that Minnesota is what's being referred to and for those that don't, the linked article sufficiently explains such. --Sable232 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint. There are many who do not know the difference. --Damon207 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple months late, but I've posted this on WT:MNSH to get some additional input. --Sable232 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of you consulting with Fredddie and Imzadi1979 as usual. There are others, such as former Wikipedian Racepacket, who might have a different perspective. --Damon207 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "as usual?" I didn't canvass anybody, I posted it on the project talk page which is the place for such discussions. If you would like broader input there is nothing stopping you from posting a link to the discussion at WT:USRD. --Sable232 (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dredge up a quiet issue, but Racepacket is not a good editor to point to for advice. Before he was blocked as a result of a campaign to harass an editor, among other violations of policy and good etiquette, he nominated the article about a case before the Supreme Court, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, at WP:GAN. That article was finally reviewed today, quickfailed and blanked as a copyright violation. Now, Damon, please clarify your statement, and possibly even retract it. Sable did not "consult" with me. I follow WT:MNSH as a matter of course. I may be more active with Michigan highway articles, but I do work on Minnesota articles from time to time. I did nominate Minnesota State Highway 610 at GAN. In fact, I plan on uploading an updated map tomorrow afternoon to reflect the fact that the new section will open to traffic. Once I get a newspaper or TV station article confirming that the section opened, I will update the text of the article. I've already e-mailed Mn/DOT to get updated milepost data for the junction list, but they have not replied yet.

I believe that Fredddie lives in the Des Moines area, just one state over; I have family in St. Cloud, MN. We're allowed to take an interest in the quality and the content of Minnesota highway articles. We're allowed to disagree with your opinions as well. We don't need to "consult" with Sable to do that. On this issue though, policy was settle long ago through the compromise that ended SRNC (State Route Naming Convention) that resulted in WP:USSH. Unfortunately, the "Minnesota Constitutional Route" construction would only be appropriate as an article title, but not in prose unless there is an ambiguity. There are better ways to word things to void an inaccurate name. Imzadi 1979 → 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]