User talk:Dough4872/Archive 2009

NJ pics, to-be County Challenge Winner, and a new competition

Hey there. I wanted to inform you of a few things. 1) If you need pics for NJ articles, you can pull them off my Flickr page. For example, your NJ 23 articles has a pic section. Here is the entire NJ set of mine: here. 2) Once you complete the final articles for NJ, you will be declared the winner of the County Challenge. Congrats. Also, #3) We have a new USRD/CRWP competiton called the USRDCRWPCup. We would like it if you would join :). (Also, have you been able to get a IRC chat client? Chatzilla, Mibbit.com, or Freenode's Java chat work.) Cya.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Promenade at Saucon Valley logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Promenade at Saucon Valley logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the USRD-CRWP Cup

Hello, Dough4872, and welcome to the USRD-CRWP Cup. This is just a reminder that the contest will start at 00:00 UTC on Saturday (about 4 PM Pacific and about 7 PM Eastern on Friday). Nominations must be made after that time to count for the contest.

Currently, there is only one pool for contestants. Please feel free to invite any Wikipedia user to join. We need a few more users to get another pool.

It is unknown when the first round will end; however, it will last at least 3 weeks.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 27

The article New Jersey Route 27 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 27 for things needed to be addressed. --Polaron | Talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USRD cup inquiry

I noticed all your uploads on the 12th and I was wondering which of those you thought were useful for USRD articles here on enwp? I assume some of them are, but I'm not giving points for all of them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ 35 GA

Hi. I've reviewed New Jersey Route 35 and have placed it on hold. It basically has the same issues as NJ 27 and should be easily fixable. Let me know on the review page when you're done. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 14:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 10 and 23

Yeah, that is basically the problem. If you could make it somewhat better, that would help.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 00:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 574 (Erie County, New York)

Done with all comments and replied. :)Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the GAC review. Dave (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware roads, National Register of Historic Places

Thanks for fixing all those road links. When I placed the table that you modified, I had to expand the addresses, because the listing page where I got them had them all as abbreviations, so I'm not surprised that I misunderstood some of them. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway 5

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Have begun the upgrades, and will continue the more in depth ones tomorrow when it is earlier in the day. Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 05:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the upgrade. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have won Round 1 of the USRD-CRWP WikiCup!

Congratulations! You have been declared a winner of Round 1. This is just to let you know that Round 2 will be starting Sunday night. Please note the point value changes for Round 2 as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 90

The article New Jersey Route 90 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 90 for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

The article Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re comment about inflation convertor. I think the objective is to leave the historical amount in place as it is cited in the original reference used for the original year in both the prose and in the inflation template. It is just a Oh, BTW if you are reading the article now... that amount would be like thinking of this much. So for each monetary amount you have both...then and now...In this article the monetary conversion is added in the "notes" section for those who are interested for example.

SriMesh | talk 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out the other aspects and points raised and the other issues look like you did them allrightie...Message me about the inflation template thingie, now that I replied above, so we come to a common consensus one way or t'other, and I will pop in and pass the article. SriMesh | talk 01:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway 2

Hello there. Thank you for taking the time to review Saskatchewan Highway 2. I have taken the time to address the points you raised, and believe that they are covered at this juncture. It is always a learning experience, for each one you learn something else yet to tweak or do differently. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews

I've noticed a few substandard GA reviews that you have done recently - please see Talk:Northern Woods and Water Route for my notes. Further substandard reviews may lead to a deduction of points in the USRD-CRWP Cup. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Highway 131

Thank you for the GA review. I'm done with all of the comments (except the picture of the highway, since there unfortunately isn't one). --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3

Congratulations, you have made it to round 3 of the USRD-CRWP Cup, which will start at 0:00 UTC March 2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 48

The article New Jersey Route 48 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 48 for things needed to be addressed. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated NJ images on my Flickr page

If you want, I updated it a ton, also there is NJ 21A's original alignment ;) -Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 53...

...is on hold awaiting a few minor changes. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of your GA reviews

Hello Dough, I'd like to calmly request you stop reviewing User:Mitchazenia's articles at GAN. No offense, but your reviews are not exactly from a neutral standpoint, as you both are extremely familiar with transport articles. Unfortunately, Mitchazenia was docked 250 points due to this, so please do him a favor, and don't review any more of his articles.

It's not your fault, but we need to be fair to every contestant in the WikiCup, and some of the reviews you gave on his articles are not fair compared to those of other contestants. Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he told me about that. Thanks for being calm about it, Cheers! iMatthew // talk // 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congratulations

Yeah well, its not like you docked me all my points. I am the one who's pretty ticked, this was just after I had reached 1000 pts in GAs. But oh well. Thanks on the congrats and the compliment :)-Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews?

Hi. Are you referring to the WP Meteorlogy assessment system, or did you respond to the above post to an incorrect user? If so, is there something I could help out with? Or are you referring to something else entirely? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little mix-up

Hello, I am just informing you that when you posted the comment "Geography WikiProject update - 03/15/2009" on several user's talk pages, a comment above that from User:IMatthew's talk page that I had posted ended up on several users' pages that it does not concern. It would help if you inform all the users you posted this comment to of this mistake.Dough4872 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! (no pun intended).

Done I think I got them all. Sorry 'bout that. The Transhumanist 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I lied about the pun. :)

Book for NJ Highways

Since we are growing the NJSCR project so much, maybe if we keep looking, you and I should start looking into plans for the State Highways in New Jersey book using that book feature. It would mean finishing the rest of the state highways and getting them to Good Article status. Right now if I am correct, that leaves:

Interstates: All but 295
U.S. Routes: All of them
State Routes: 11, 12, 13, 14, 18N, 19, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33 Business, 34, 39, 44, 45, 47, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101, 109, 120, 122, 124, 129, 133, 138, 139, 140, 143, 147, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 174, 175, 177, 178, 181, 183, 185, 187, 201, 202, 203, 208, 300, 303, 324, 347, 439, 440, 444 and 700.

As you can see, this is a major list to finish, but we can do it :).Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look this morning at the book as the articles are now - its right now 880 pages approximate. My gut feeling is this'll reach 1000 eventually if we finish the rest of the non-GAs.Mitch/HC32 11:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, after changes, the book is apparently going to be over 950 pages :S - and well, its going to cost $32. But I like the idea that we go through with this :) - ping me when you can.Mitch/HC32 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all :P - look up more than designation stuff you know :) - Mitch/HC32 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

439 is finished. Leaves a good list still though.Mitch/HC32 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am working for this book. Also, I am going to get 149 tomorrow - I started some of it.Mitch/HC32 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a sandbox for NJ 169. Now I am sure you are thinking, why merge it out of 440? Well, look at the talk of page of User:Mitchazenia/New Jersey Route 169 and you might see why.Mitch/HC32 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ 180

New Jersey Route 180 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --NE2 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My $.02 I would not have passed this article, as IMO the article fails on two grounds of the good article criteria, verifiability (NE2 is right, this source is a personal website, not a reliable 3rd party published source), and Notability. Would you be willing to reconsider the review? If you will, the review process is not necessary, and IMO some mud slinging can be avoided. Regards Dave (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US 202 and 322 in NJ images

Hey, I have updated the US 202 and US 322 maps for New Jersey as requested. Enjoy! 25or6to4 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the county challenge?

Even with the ongoing drama, I have set up signups for the County Challenge 2. Only thing you'll have to change is your state :( - Since NJ won the last one, I'd like to see a state with more than 20 counties get more of your good attention :) - You can sign up until April 5 - so if you can find a state, be our guest ;). Cya (and sorry about NJ 180).Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACR for CA 78

I finally replied to your comments on the ACR. Could you take another look? Thanks, Rschen7754 (T C) 04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 things I wanted to tell you

Hey there, I just have to bring you up to date on a few things. Anyway, I am fine now with getting rid of NJ 180. I guess it was the wrong decision on my part to write it. Anyway we have another problem for NJSCR, because of the mass amount of GAs now using Alps' Roads as a primary source, we could run into a major delistment. We have to find sources and fast (see New Jersey Route 284 for example). I would highly suggest sources of maps and more stuff.

Second thing I wanted to tell you is that about the WikiCup situation. iMatthew gave me my 250 points back, but left something for me to tell you. With the County Challenge going on in the side, you'll have to back off on reviewing anything of mine that relates to the Good Article stuff. iMatthew said it would be more preferable that you back off on all types of reviewing because of the Conflict of Interest and well, its going to have to be so. Just do me that favor. I hope you understand.

See you later.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I just don't want more problems. :) - Anyway, I see you GAN'd your first CC article :) - Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 15:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar
		U.S. Route 50 in Nevada passed FAC, thank you for the review and copyedits. It would not have passed without them.Dave (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ GAs

You don't have to remove the total mileage from the lead (though not having it in the lead doesn't harm the article). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 20

The article New Jersey Route 20 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 20 for things needed to be addressed. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Route 413

I have passed your nomination of Maryland Route 413, please view the talkpage for details. Thanks, and keep up the good work! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

I just finished posting a few feedback comments on the current introduction to the linked article. Basically, I think the current intro is unwieldy and duplicates info shown later in the article. Since you've been editing it so heavily I figured that you may have a reason for the duplication. -User:TheOneKEA —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Chesapeake City, MD roads

Are moving to GA fast :) - A city I've wanted to target for a long time, thanks for getting Maryland Route 213 to GA, that saves me a lot of work. I got 285 to GA, and I have 284 at C - dunno how I can GA that and get away with it. I gotta finish 286 - leaving 537, 342 and the all important list and I have a GT for Chesapeake City :) - Thanks again for 213.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is, I can't put that list in the topic - not in scope. Maybe when I write List of highways in Chesapeake City, Maryland, it might help. Anyway, I finished 537 and am mostly done with 286, leaving 342.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work on New Jersey and Maryland road articles. Well done! –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for reverting LivingBot's erroneous edit. I think I've found the problem, but I shan't take it personally if you revert every even remotely unhelpful edit. Humans are always better than bots. Anyhow, cheers for that. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Good articles/recent

Hey Dough4872. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Connector ACR

I apologize, I didn't get to devote quite as much time to Wikipedia as I thought I would today. That being said, I did get the chance to look at the route description and maps of the area more thoroughly, and it's a lot clearer to me what's going on now. While I do like the recent edits you've made, there are still some more ( :-/ ) comments I have, but I won't have the opportunity to put them into words until tomorrow. – Kacie Jane (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dover Mall

Thank you for alerting me to this. I am new to editing and have LOTS to learn. I did create a new page for the list but am now not sure this is correct either under the wikipedia manual. Thanks again, David —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review of "Interstate 476"

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007, Interstate 476 has been re-reviewed against current GA standards. The article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted. You are being notified because of your major contributions to this article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your work...

... on improving no less than 3 roads articles (Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, U.S. Route 50, and Interstate 476) in a week, if not for you, these articles would have been delisted as Good Articles. Here is a tasty cookie. Keep up the good work, maybe someday you'll get that promotion! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ErgoSum88 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Msg

You are a testament to the diligence of the roadgeek, if not for you a few roads articles would not be GAs anymore. I see you have taken notice of National Network, but if you really want to help, I think Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States needs some sources, I'm trying to get a featured topic going with my trucking articles. I think it will take a lot of work, although I think its doable. Happy editing. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few important NJ routes still need help

I know your focus is still MD, but right now the County Challenge is not active and NJ has gone quiet, again. I know we need some important articles finished, such as New Jersey Route 94, New Jersey Route 19, New Jersey Route 28, and more. If you could tell me if you want to finish those three and the important ones, tell me.Mitch/HC32 00:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add on a few: New Jersey Route 34, New Jersey Route 79, New Jersey Route 81, New Jersey Route 50, New Jersey Route 12. A lot of the important routes are still stubs. :( -Thanks for helping.Mitch/HC32 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is more, I am just listing what I found.Mitch/HC32 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Delaware Bridge, where New Jersey Route 163 redirects to, I think it should be redone, as 1) Delaware Bridge isn't even an official name, and 2) Most of the info is wrong.Mitch/HC32 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping on the FLC btw.Mitch/HC32 15:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, New Jersey Route 120 needs help too - its got good history. I am trying to work on the minor routes :) - 163 and 167 being examples.Mitch/HC32 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

Hi, I normally edit various music work groups articles, but often need a change- a break. I was wondering, exactly, how you came to edit articles about highways, and get information about them, and in particular, where you upload your maps from. Can you let me know? I do bounce from articles time to time, and maybe can help in some way; either way, I'd like to learn! --leahtwosaints (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup problem from months ago

I talked to User:iMatthew today. Since its becoming desperate for me, he's allowed you to review my GANs again, but they need to be top-notch, as he will be reviewing your reviews. Fair enough?Mitch/HC32 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Also, I pulled NJ 163 from Delaware Bridge. It wasn't going to progress in there, and I wrote a pretty good article about it.Mitch/HC32 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PA 171

Ping, I finished everything that I didn't leave comments on.Mitch/HC32 22:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping - PA 664.Mitch/HC32 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maryland Route 213

The article Maryland Route 213 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Maryland Route 213 for things needed to be addressed. Crzy cheetah 01:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Pics on my Flickr page updated

I put up an entire set of NJ pics from a road trip up yesterday for: NJ 58, NJ 62, NJ 19, NJ 120, NJ 153, NJ 161, NJ 15, NJ 183, NJ 177 and NJ 10. In mid-July I am going on a mega trip in southern jersey for a ton of highways, so look out :) - Mitch/HC32 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Went on a mini trip today - Add on NJ 164, NJ 439, and NJ 81 pics. I'm collecting them 1 by 1.Mitch/HC32 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you starting NJ 28 - I am uploading pics as we speak for you.Mitch/HC32 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 57 - This was missed somehow. Route 57 has recently become one of seven scenic byways in New Jersey, and needs a good expansion. Note: The pics I have are in Washington boro only.Mitch/HC32 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 68 - With the proposed freeway back in the 70s, this is worth expansion. I plan to come get more pics.Mitch/HC32 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 124 - Here is another important route - but please hold off on GANs and map requests, which the next will be your 20th GAN.Mitch/HC32 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I have a piece of bad news. I did not get to go on my trip yesterday, which is postponed probably till September. So, sorry. :( - Mitch/HC32 17:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok. - I live in Jersey, so its usually easier :P - Mitch/HC32 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SECR K and SR K1 classes

I have undertaken some of the improvements suggested in the review, however, please take a look at my comments on the review page for an explanation of some of the issues that may seem unresolved. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the outstanding issue? I've explained why the 'section' remains lower case, as it is terminology used in all railway texts consulted when dealing with the Southern Railway. Also take note of its use in the other Southern Railway-related articles. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have another look at the offending statement, you'll see that I have added a reference for it.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearson

Many thanks for carrying out the review of Charles Pearson. --DavidCane (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 31

Can you help me with this? I mean give us a fair share and copyedit what you wrote, which is 90% of the article.Mitch/HC32 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per TMF's review, I have done 90% of the problems. Can you rewrite the lead and make the route description a little more interesting?Mitch/HC32 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RI 4 and 403

Thanks for reviewing these articles! I finished making all the improvements you listed on their talk pages. Cheers, Rai•me 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for Wolverton to Newport Pagnell line

Hi. I have tried to address all but one of the points you raised here. The one I missed was your request for another image, but unfortunately I cannot obtain any suitable photographs of the railway. Would you mind reviewing it again when you have the time, as I think most of your points have been improved. Thanks. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My first GA... Sorry- I'm really happy! Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 120

The article New Jersey Route 120 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 120 for things needed to be addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Washington State Route 532/GA1

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 532/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 81

The article New Jersey Route 81 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 81 for things needed to be addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query re some of your GA noms

Hi there. I am preparing to review one or more of your older GA noms. I've not done transport GAs before, so it may take some adjusting. Can you please have a look at Maryland Route 355, Maryland Route 97 as there are redlinks where some images should be, and see what you want to do to fix that? The other Maryland routes seem OK. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Barnstar

		The Washington State Highways Barnstar
		In recognition of your exellent GAN reviewing skills for two WASH articles, SR 530 and SR 532 between the dates of 19 and 21 of July 2009, I hearby award you this barnstar as a token of the whole project's (mostly my) thanks. –CG 02:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maryland Route 55

The article Maryland Route 55 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Maryland Route 55 for things needed to be addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Route 355

That was a quick response. I have two outstanding issues, which I have covered at the talk page. In particular, I think any highway article should have some indication of traffic volumes - surely what goes along a road is a key feature of a comprehensive article about that road :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed this for GA. See ou again. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Maryland routes at GAN

Hi there, just to let you know that if you want to add in some summary traffic counts to these articles, as you did for 355, then leave a message at my talk page, i will try and get to reviewing at least some of them asap. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 19

The article New Jersey Route 19 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 19 for things needed to be addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Washington State Route 7

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 7/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I haven't found an image, but I think that File:Volcano evacuation route sign.jpg may have been taken on SR 7. I am trying to contact the author and if not, I have a picture of SR 508 approching SR 7 that has a "JCT SR 7" shield we could crop. –CG 01:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Review of Cathay Pacific

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Cathay Pacific/GA1.
Message added 03:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of New Jersey Route 88

The article New Jersey Route 88 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Jersey Route 88 for things needed to be addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Freeway

In regards to your comments on the merge discussion, I've added a new "Early history" section which is specific to the Golden State Freeway. There's certainly more to go, but it's a start and the content would be inappropriate for the Interstate 5 article. You might want to have a look.--Oakshade (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MD 97

OK, I'm happy with those final changes and have passed it. It may be a few days before I can get to the other MDs I tagged toi undertake, as I've let a couple things go that I was going to do. If you're willing to wait I'll leave them tagged at GAN, but if that is an issue, let me know. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what would be great would be if you lookat MD 313 and MD 2 to see if they have a statement about the general purpose of the road, and an explicit statement of the first designation of the route, as was just done at 97. It will make the process quicker. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback on WA 529 GAN

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 529/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New York State Route 326

GA review issues fixed.Mitch/HC32 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Review of Dragonair

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Dragonair/GA1.
Message added 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GAR for Low Frequency radio range

Hi Dough, thank you for your review. I am working on all your items, but in the meanwhile, I have a question about your item #1, "Citations are not supposed to be in the lead as it is supposed to be a summary of the article." The current MOS guideline for lead citations says, among others: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." It does not say that "citations are not supposed to be in the lead." Would you mind checking this point? If you'd like, I can start a thread about this on WT:LEAD. I don't mind either way, I just want to get it right. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed addressing all your items, except #1 which needs clarification per above. Thanks again for your work. Crum375 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Air Hong Kong

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Air Hong Kong/GA1.
Message added 04:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Charles Lindbergh

Since most of the edits you suggest are rather minor and none are isurmountable, requiring mostly minor edits to fix, how about giving me a couple days to fix them before an instant fail? --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, at the moment there are a couple of editors bickering about the use of a word so its probably better if that settles down first. I left them a little message, so hopefully they'll knock off that nonesense and address these other conscerns. --Kumioko (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Review of Air Hong Kong and Hong Kong Airlines

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Air Hong Kong/GA1.
Message added 02:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Hong Kong Airlines/GA1.
Message added 14:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurence Harbor (NJT station)

I noticed this instance fail and I have some concerns. From here, your #1 point is not a GA requirement. It can easily be fixed. Your #2 point is unnecessary, as one picture is enough, and sometimes GAs lack pictures. Your #3 point is wrong, as they are from multiple individuals and thus discuss different parts. Furthermore, notability is not a GA concern. #4 is a misreading of stable, which merely means that there are no edit wars. GAs constantly change after their rankings, especially when people expand them for FAC. I would suggest you reopen the GAN and take another look. If not, I shall do it instead. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that "discussion" is not consensus. One says it would fail, another says there is nothing specific. Consensus requires multiple people. Furthermore, stability is a joint requirement between GA and FAC, and changing one would force the changing of the other. There has been no discussion to this at FAC. Please adjust accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just wanted to point out also that the discussion comes from 2007. I've just been keeping eye on some of the GANs lately because of sweeps causing all sorts of problems. It is best to help get things going instead of having a whole line up of problems (and the transportation articles have had some problems with GAN, another reason why I hate roads and the rest :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low Frequency radio range

Hi Dough, I somehow missed your response regarding the lead's citations, but I have now replied. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the promotion and all your work, it is very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Hong Kong Express Airways

Dough4872, this is the last of the 'operating' Airlines of Hong Kong article to be promoted to GA status, thank you very much for all your help in reviewing all of them! Greatly appreciates it! :) Aviator006 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at talk:Hong Kong Express Airways/GA1.
Message added 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MD 2 and MD 313

I've done reviews for these two articles if you want to have a look. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George's County roads

Hi, just wondering what kind of info you need for a GA-class article for PG county roads. I'll see if I can help! RivalPeeps (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Washington State Route 9

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 9/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–CG 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 9

Hi there! When you review a Good article nominee, don't forget that the date = parameter in {{GA}} should give the date when the article was passed, not nominated. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos * (t·c) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Utah State Route 143

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Utah State Route 143/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

De FaultRyan 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Ball Park (UTA station)

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Ball Park (UTA station)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Admrboltz (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add New Jersey Route 168 to your to-do list

I wonder how this was missed?Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Rhode Island Route 99

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Rhode Island Route 99/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Rai•me 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WA-21 GAN

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 21/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hudson County Routes

You may have noticed I have been doing more List of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey, and may continue to do more though the focus of my interest is not so much about the road but the history and geography of the area. Would like to contribute/not come in conflict with your work. Hope there's a balance. New articles Pershing Road (Hudson County), Danforth Avenue (Hudson County), and Old Bergen Road. As you seem adept at info boxes and sources, wonder if you wouldn't mind to do a "treatment" ThanksDjflem (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 new route up on Flickr

One of your GANs finally has a set of its own, as this weekend, I got part of NJ 79 :D - And we're almost done with the book! If you can turn your focus towards the US Routes and Interstates, it would be helpful (after New Jersey Route 55 of course, because I can probably take on the rest of the minor routes). But our dream is almost a reality.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle 71, its not that long of a road. Also, I have to go back to the Rutgers Library to start documenting the details for Route 92 and Route 169, as they have much of those things. The state library has yet to send the NJ 74 and NJ 85 documents I requested, and its been 7 weeks almost.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where we stand to finish:

(Moved to User:Dough4872/NJ routes)

So these are how many roads are left. Maybe I need more help on the state routes than I thought.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 14:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops :|. Since NJ has all these decommissioned route articles, we should go ahead and finish all of them, like NY has almost. I think we should be done by October at this rate.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to the Rutgers Library tonight, so I can work on NJ 169 and maybe 92.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added NJ 14, and bolded the important routes.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I moved this list to User:Dough4872/NJ routes. Dough4872 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I went to the Rutgers Library and got a lot of information today :) - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More roads on Flickr today. NJ 68, NJ 156, NJ 129, NJ 160, NJ 170, NJ 174 were the major part.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, out of nowhere I went and expanded NJ 59 and NJ 64, two of the shortest routes on the system.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Massachusetts Route 25

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Massachusetts Route 25/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Rai•me 01:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Massachusetts Route 25/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Rai•me 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Oneworld/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aviator006 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Rhode Island Route 37

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Rhode Island Route 37/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rai•me 01:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Route 440 remember

Hey, for warning, when you do the history of Route 440, don't keep 169 bolded, as I am planning to write it. I just need a chance to sit down at the library and look through the construction stuff.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna join us on #wikipedia-en-roads on IRC? Here's the site, would be fun to have you around, just type "Dough4872" in the Username and put "wikipedia-en-roads" in the channel. Would really be fun.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can join us today if you want.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, apologies if my recent behavior has caused a problem. I have some internal mental issues and it'll show up in stress. If you wanna join us, be our guest :) - Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ 109

Why did you call NJ 109's intersections with CRs non-notable? It is an extremely small state route, so these intersections wold be considered notable, in my opinion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 12:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the SLD is flat out wrong. (I vacation in the area. I know.) But is that a reason to get rid of Madison Street and Texas Avenue intersections? I agree, with most NJ routes, 600-series county routes are unimportant. The keyword is most-- 109 is 3 miles long! For other short, other one-county routes such as NJ 147 list 600 series county routes as major intersections, and some of 147's intersections are messed up in the SLDs as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take NJ 83. If we remove the county routes, it will have two intersections. Why are you on such a spree of deleting CRs? CRs which are longer than such short roads such as County Route 603 (Cape May County, New Jersey) list county routes as major intersections. 83, 109, and 147 are little more than county routes themselves. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi Dough4872. I just wanted to apologize for dragging your GAN through a rather needlessly long review. Please note that I do not doubt your ability as an editor to write excellent articles, and I wish you the best of luck in the rest of your nominations.--Edge3 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voorhees Town Center

Yeah, I keep meaning to take a picture of the new sign and what-not, but I forget to have my camera with me whenever I drive past the place. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not finished yet but I haven't yet found any coverage or acknowledgement of that fact. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big haul this weekend :)

I went on Flickr fun this weekend! :) - Got let's see:

The 1919 bridge on NJ 27
New Jersey Route 185
New Jersey Route 169
New Jersey Route 440
U.S. Route 1 and 9 Truck
New Jersey Route 65
Saving the best for last! The right-of-way area off of NJ 27 for the unbuilt New Jersey Route 92.

Hope you like them!Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's see, I nominated NJ 162 for GAN :D. Also, I see you chose the only on road shield of NJ 185 for use. What's next on the expansion list?Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh yeah, 70 and 72 were on your list. I should go ahead and do 71 soon.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hoping I'll get my Cape May trip sooner or later. Also, apparently we left 70 out on that list.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My head is eyeing NJ 85, seeing its a never constructed route, and Steve Anderson has the stuff I need, should be good there.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on IRC? I am only here for a little while, and wanted to talk.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC? I have updates for you.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) - You know what I'd want :) - Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Review of JALways and JAL Express

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:JALways/GA1.
Message added 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:JAL Express/GA1.
Message added 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you very much for your reviews. Greatly appreciate your input to improve my skills in editing the articles. :) Aviator006 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Review of Japan Airlines and J-Air

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Japan Airlines/GA1.
Message added Aviator006 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:JAL Express/GA1.
Message added Aviator006 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wondering if you could help me out

Hi there. I am a fellow highways and maps lover. I noticed that you've got a hefty share of good articles on the topic written, and was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing an article that I wrote. Your outside and knowledgeable eyes would be of great assistance in promoting the article to featured list. Hope to hear back. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue of the Saints

Aside the name and route number being reversed, could you explain how AotS is different than Trenton Freeway? AotS was created in the early 1990s, while IA 27 wasn't designated until 2001; MO 27 was designated shortly thereafter to match IA 27. Also, if IA/MO 27 are separate from AotS, how would MO 27 be different from I-74 in Iowa? (You supported a merge to I-74.)

Given these examples, your position at AotS is confusing to me. --Fredddie ™ 01:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that IA 27 was designated specifically for AotS. --Fredddie ™ 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NJ 180

I saw this morning and I am not the least bit pleased. Come on IRC, since I have a couple hours to discuss said issue and some other things.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More photos

NJ 151 and NJ 155 for the lot :D.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ 71, NJ 444S (decommissioned) and 520 will be uploaded. Got more of 35 and 36. But, they will be up when I can.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71 & 444S are up. I am also looking for remains of the right-of-way for NJ 178 and NJ 69 Freeways so maybe we'll have some useful pics. Steve Anderson listed some right-of-ways, but I am looking for them. IRC?Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 14:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in getting Interstate 70 in Colorado to Featured Article status. Dave (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more done, one 1/2 done

I finished New Jersey Route 166 and New Jersey Route 167 yesterday. I also have New Jersey Route 63 half-finished in a sandbox. I see you wrote part of 143, I'll finish that later, but I updated the book for other things, including 180 in a sandbox.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 12:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. In the time it took you to reply, I finished Routes 63 and 143. IRC?Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have reliable sourcing that 29B was never built like S43. Also, Great Bay Boulevard is old S4A, and Ocean Drive is parts of 109, 147 and 152.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Drive could be included, since it is a long and recognizable named road with its own shield (much like the toll roads). I don't think Great Bay Boulevard makes sense for S4A since the S4A information is in the 87 article and Great Bay Boulevard could easily be mentioned there. Dough4872 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJ 44, NJ 187, and NJ 152 done in 1 day, yeesh :D. Let's keep this pace.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 18:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC? Updates

Can you come on IRC for a few minutes before I go to bed.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have photos of the Triborough Road abandoned interchange

I went there today and got photos. Will upload later.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was right about 151

151 did precede the 1953 renumbering! I found a news article from December 28, 1952 listing Route 151 remaining the same during the renumbering, along with Route 84.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that, I finished NJ 151 this afternoon and NJ 91 last night. :D - Will see what time I have before my final midterm to choose my next article.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you've been on a roll with US Routes. :D - with 30, 40, 202 and 322 out of the way (along with 1/9 Truck). Just leaves 1, 1 BUS, 9, 22, 46, 130 and 206.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 130 is rather simple. 206 may be another story. 1 is shorter than all four, and 9 will be a total annoyance.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will help with 206 where necessary.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have better luck for the Parkway, the turnpike is just too much for me.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where we stand

Neither of us got much accomplished this week. We have the weekend and the end of the semester coming up, so we should work towards finishing.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know that, but seeing US 22 unfinished, I am sure you didn't have time. So don't worry. I need to do 138 and 140 soon.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 04:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's no deadline, but I am itching to get thris done, so I need to get moving on articles. I mean 25 still stands, and there's apparently a ROW of NJ 75 i need to go photograph,along with 69 and 178, so its annoying.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I start my spring semester January 25, so I have lots of time.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Washington State Route 506

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 506/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, progress!

Nice work on US 22! I need a mention of NJ 11 though :P. I was on a busy streak this week: 140, 157, 138, 133, 177 and 303 this week alone I believe. We should keep this pace :D. As a bonus, only two active state routes are stubs. :D NJ 347 and NJ 33 Business (which will be in the next day or so). So let's keep a good pace. Doing US 46 next or US 206? I will help with 206 if necessary,because I have lots of photos and experience. For me: 33 BUS, 153, 26, 32, 82 and 67 are in the ready portions for next week.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Whoopsie. :| It would be easier to get an image in if 122 wasn't one of the 7 routes in Northern NJ I still need to photograph directly. Uploading really crappy sign image. Most of the freeways are done (SR freeways) - I have 4 of the decommissioned ones to do still (11, 14, 60, 75). Don't know what to do afterwards.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14 is done :D - Just three left to go, the problem is, 11 is going to be an annoyance. 60 and 75 should be no problem.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Street Waterloo Railway

Thanks for the quick response and GA review for this. I thought it would be waiting a couple of weeks before it drew attention. --DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Washington State Route 510

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:Washington State Route 510/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbin it in.

I noticed while reading my printout of the Route 27 article, you misspelled the street I live on :P - if you can find it, you'll laugh. :P - And on to other business 26 is done, more of annoyance then I expected.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live on Suttons - which it is locally.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dolt! :P - Look at the street name next to Suttons. You have an l and c out of place.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh its ok. Having fun with you :P - Anyway, my semester ends on December 18, so at that point I will have a lot more time. Right now, I've sliced 26, which was a large hurdle off of my end of the bargain. 25 will be even harder.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw 94. I keep a running tab of printed articles in a binder. I have the printed 94 copy ready. If you have time for IRC tonight, I'd like to talk.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clinched and photographed NJ 122. Rather interesting that the 0 Mile Marker is US 22 ALT's, not NJ 122s.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have been working for straight hours on the state highways in nj list, which is up to 120 kb in size already. If you come on IRC, I can show you how its going. By the way, go to my NJ 163 set and grab the photo of the NJSHR 5 stamp for US 46, which you did a gerat job on.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:New Jersey Route 70/GA1.
Message added 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice job, still needs improvement though. Let me know how it works out. MWOAP (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dough4872. You have new messages at Talk:New Jersey Route 70/GA1.
Message added 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MWOAP (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One More step to finish it up. I will keeps watch on the article. --MWOAP (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrads, Your Article New Jersey Route 70 is now a GA! --MWOAP (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice on US 130, other things, IRC?

Hey there. Nice job on U.S. Route 130.Now we have the harder fish to fry for last (9 and 206) outside of 1 and 1 Business. I have not accomplished much this week outside of normal stuff. I have been staring all week at NJ 92 as if it was mocking me. I have no idea why. Anyway, we're getting closer. I have the 51, 153 and 169 sandboxes still waiting, so we'll see. I am also putting the thought of putting Darlington's Bridge at Delaware Station and Yardley-Wilburtha Bridge (when re-written) in as backups to 39 and 163, but that's not set in stone yet. If you can come on IRC, i'd like it.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for New Jersey Route 72

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for Eurasian Land Bridge

I believe all the suggested changes or corrections for this article have now [1] been accomplished. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to give the article such a thorough review, providing valuable criticism and suggestions for improvement, and for assessing for GA. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on 1 and 1/9

Hey there man. Great job on 1 & 1/9. As a result, I will do you a favor. I'll take US 1 Business off your hands so you can go to the other important roads (9, 206, 78, 80). Just merge 11 when you're done with 78.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 12:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crud, we forgot one. US 9W exists in NJ last I checked. :| - we gotta get done too.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put 287 on the top of the Interstate priority list.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 12:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I've been staring at 82 for weeks, just never did it. My winter break starts tommorrow at 12:20 PM. Got 2 more finals.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overdue award

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		You have done a great service for Wikipedia. Thanks. MWOAP (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-occupancy toll lane

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of High-occupancy toll lane, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.mnpass.org/394/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 287

I suggest that you withdraw this nomination - the article needs a lot of help. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

From your pal,
CG

– ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 04:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Old shields

Imagery from the 30s to the 50s of shields from all different places. However, several are on books.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shows a different design in 1937, but also there is on on the NJDARM historical stuff - you'll have to find it - it shows NJ 26 and NJ 25 signage using the similar design. I don't have the link right now. The 203 shields backs up the newer design, but says Skyline instead. Others include the pic on the cover of Highland Park: A Borough of Homes with an NJ 27 shield.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book update

Cool news. I've been checking updates, its getting there. As a bonus. We can choose a color and any image of our choice. They have image choices, but its somewhat limited. Right now I was looking at using either the Interstate 173 pic, the SHR 13 stamp on NJ 27, or one displaying a shield in a public form. What's your ideas.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the book creator thing gives a limited choice of images. It would take a while to link them all. Also the Marlton Circle is pretty bad condition.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - does 347 plan on ever getting expanded? I know I've been lazy on 71, but my computer is in the shop and I am waiting for it to get fixed. I probably could do 71 tonight.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to upload them still, but I went to Atlantic City for the first time in 10 years this weekend. Photographed 4 new routes: the ACE, NJ 72, NJ 180 and the northern portion of NJ 167 (or to my system 167N). The latter three are all in darkness though. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting 71 now too actually.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71 done. Waiting for you on 347, which i hope has a good history, because the RD can't keep its own if the history is bad.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finished 32. What's up with 347? We're on a great pace, so its good timing. Also, as a request from everyone else: Hold off on the GANs :P - Its getting further and further backlogged, and we need not to nominate everything.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For 347: The Route 55 possible extension thing is majorly important.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 23:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - 2 - Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 00:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USRDCUP postponed

Unfortunately, due to the low number of participants in this year's contest, I have decided to postpone the contest until we get more people interested. I will let you know when the contest will be. Thanks! --Rs chen 7754 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]