User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Your edits to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course

After my edit, you arrived at the page a couple of hours later; did you get a ping from my edit summary formatting, or was it just via watchlist? Thanks. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I did get a ping from your edit summary, and that prompted me to take a look at the article. From there, I thought that I could clean up the citations. That's all. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I thought you would (couldn't remember the special diff formatting to link directly to the diff), no complaints, but I hate what I describe as 'contrived' citation templates leaving red errors. It's all dependent on whomever has written the templates - ferinstance: image=, static_image=, image-alt= with the variations prompting me to access them when I need to add a parameter.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for M-132 (Michigan highway)

M-132 (Michigan highway) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Schierbecker (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for M-331 (Michigan highway)

M-331 (Michigan highway) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for M-41 (Michigan highway)

M-41 (Michigan highway) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of M-132 (Michigan highway) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M-132 (Michigan highway), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-132 (Michigan highway) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just curious for asking about know who you are!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm LandenKarlM4, so what's your first and last name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.125.110 (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That's personal information. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That's none of your business, pal! 8.41.125.110 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Well neither is it yours. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, My Name Is LandenKarlMillar604 And What's Yours?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are You A Boy Or Girl? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.153.166 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

He's not going to reply. I'm serious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

us highway editing the list page.

with the list some terminuses are missing routes that are there and signed so should they be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucthedog2 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lucthedog2: I don't know what you're talking about. You'll need to explain a bit before I can help you. Imzadi 1979 → 05:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ok its with the list of us highways the info boxes some of the terminuses are missing information and some of the lengths of the roads are wrong so should we fix it. And also if a road is singed differently at one end from the other for instance us 9 should it be on us 9's page should it say western terminus or southern terminus. Lucthedog2 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

US-51 After I-39's Southern Terminus In Illinois Is An Arterial Road, Not an Expressway

Hi, Imzadi1979.

It has come to my attention that you are trying to state and keep that U.S. Highway 51 (US-51) after Interstate 39's (I-39) southern terminus in Illinois is an expressway, rather than an arterial road. While that portion of US-51 may look like an expressway (i.e. four lane divided superhighway with an overall traversable median), it is not. It is an arterial road.

An arterial road: (1) is multi-laned—many times, having a median, traversable or not; (2) has at-grade intersections, nearly all of the time; (3) is meant to serve moderately-high volumes and speeds of traffic, depicting a mixture of more thru traffic than local traffic, one-tier down from an expressway/superhighway in the hierarchy of roads; and (4) usually are U.S. highways (like US-51).

An expressways/superhighway: (1) is multi-laned—many times, having a median, traversable or not (which is where you are probably getting confused on); (2) always has interchanges no matter what; (3) is meant to serve the highest volumes and speeds of traffic, depicting thru traffic 99 percent of the time and 1 percent local traffic—making it one-tier above from an arterial road in the hierarchy of roads; and (4) usually are interstates (like I-39).

Simply put: US-51 post-I-39 in Central–Southern Illinois, while having some interchanges in that portion of it, mainly has at-grade intersections—which accurately fits the description of an arterial road, rather than an expressway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteria12 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Masteria12: I think you're confusing and conflating the distinction between an expressway and a freeway. Your "expressways/superhighway" definition is that of a freeway, although point 4 in it is a bit of a problem if you look at other states, like Michigan, where we have many freeways that aren't Interstates. An expressway has limited access, not always fully controlled access. So while properties adjacent to a freeway enjoy no right to access the roadway, an expressway may have some property access, but not full access like with an arterial road. Freeways only have interchanges, but expressways can have at-grade intersections. I understand the confusion when some states give their freeways names that use the word expressway even though they are a little different.

Take a look at US 41 north of Howard, Wisconsin. That is a full freeway all the way to Abrams. Northeast of the split with US 141 at Abrams, US 41 is an expressway up to the south side of Oconto. There is cross traffic at at-grade intersections and some limited driveway access to the highway. At the south side of Oconto, there is an interchange for the business loop, and USS 41 bypasses the city on a full freeway. On the bypass there are no intersections at grade and no driveways. Past the interchange at the northern side of Oconto, US 41 resumes as an expressway as before. The situation is repeated along the Peshtigo bypass, and US 41 doesn't become an arterial until it reaches the south side of Marinette where driveway access resumes.

The section of US 51 immediately south of I-39 looks like an expressway per the proper distinction above, at least in that immediate vicinity. Most of the access to the highway is at intersections or interchanges, although there are a few random driveways. That meets the definition of an expressway. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Imzadi1979.

My apologies; I think that there is a regional distinction on what determines an expressway throughout different parts of the United States. Coming from the Northeast, expressways are—95 percent of the time—controlled-access highways, AKA superhighways. (I have always been taught that the word, superhighways, is the umbrella term for all controlled-access highways, which includes beltlines, beltways, bypasses [in most occasions], expressways [as previously mentioned], freeways, parkways [in some occasions], spurs, thruways, turnpikes [in most occasions], and tollways. All of these different types of superhighways have subtle or unique intended usages for guiding traffic.) I acknowledge that these terms and concepts are not universal and are thereby polysemous (i.e., a term that is interchangeable and can coexist in various meanings). Regardless, to paraphrase beforehand, though there is a proper definition of an expressway, such term can be perceived differently, as your/the proper version of expressway is looser than my perception of it due to regional distinctions.

But, what I am getting from your reply is that expressways are arterial roads not situated inside the borders of a town/city/municipality. That is, they are all: (1) multi-laned; (2) serve more thru traffic than local traffic; (3) have moderately-high speeds; (4) have roughly 50 percent-or-less access to the road by other roads and/or properties; (5) used specifically outside the areas of a town/city; and (6) are usually state routes and U.S. highways, in most occasions.

And, yes, I am aware that there are superhighways outside the interstate system.

Lastly, I do want to ask you a question: Coming from my home state of New Jersey, what do you consider NJ Route 33 (NJ-33) from Twin Rivers to Millhurst exactly? An expressway, like US-51 post-I-36's southern terminus? A stroad? An arterial road? Just curious. Let me know. And, thank you for reading all of this. Masteria12 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Masteria12: I'm working with the definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by the Federal Highway Administration and codifying various highway signage and design regulations in the US. That's how the articles on freeway and expressway go, and it's the definitions that legally apply in the country. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds cool! It also sounds like someone that I would be interest in doing as a career!

Also, were you able to check out my question that I asked earlier? Masteria12 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox road

Hello! I have a template request for you from User:LukeWiller. If you look at the Template:Infobox road for Italian roads for example Autostrada A9 (Italy), the last section of it outlines the Highway system-->Roads in Italy
Autostrade
State
Regional
Provincial. After "provincial", "municipal" should be added linking to Municipal road (Italy). Thank you for your help. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: that link has been added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey! One more thing can you link the Roads in Italy in the infobox with Roads in Italy? Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: that link has also been added. Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Capitol Loop

Saw some recent edits about the decommissioning of the Capitol Loop. But I didn't see any citations. What is the source for this information?--Criticalthinker (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Capitol Loop#cite note-MOU-3 is the source, the memorandum of understanding transferring jurisdiction of the highway from the Michigan Department of Transportation to the City of Lansing, effective immediately on the second signature on March 26, 2024. Once MDOT gave it away, it ceased to be a state trunkline effective immediately, and upon losing that status, the designation was decommissioned. https://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/MichHwysBus96-496.html#CapitolLoop also notes the decommissioning as of March 26, 2024, if you'd like an online source. Imzadi 1979 → 17:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm kind of shocked as I heard nothing about it. In fact, with the whole discussion over the MLK Blvd reconfiguration, there was talk that MDOT was actually going to get more ROW extending a bit onto West Michigan Avenue. It's also interesting, because the city never talked about this transfer in all the talk of the two-way conversion, which seems like an important detail. A lot of communities are trying to claw back jurisdiction from MDOT. Criticalthinker (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to ask. I've been trying to find out the change of the northern terminus of US-127 in Lansing for some time, but have never been able to find a definitive answer, and MichiganHighways.org is the source of the confusion. The site mentions that it was first at Kalamazoo and what would eventually become Larch before it was rerouted over a reconfigured Cedar at Kalamazoo (1930). But by 1950, the entry on the website mentions that US-127 and a rerouted US-27 now "runs concurrently with its own parent route (US-27) for even longer than it had in the past—1½ miles." This would seem to imply that US-127's northern terminus was extended northward sometime before then. Can you find anything on when US-127 was extended northward to run concurrently run with US-127? Criticalthinker (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Misunderstnding

Sorry about the misunderstanding, but i had already put it on the talk page, since nobody responded, I decided to do it myself. 174.206.160.153 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A confession

Hello, Imzadi. This is Bluebird207, posting at an IP address.

I am well aware that back in March 2016 you told me, "I tend not to read very long posts, and possibly I don't read any part of it at all." Well, this post *is* going to be very long. In fact, very, *very*, VERY long - so long that it will require quite a bit of scrolling. And I *would* like you to read every single word of it, however long this will take you.

Starting from the start: after nearly ten years of editing as Bluebird207, I retired at the end of 2018, having become disillusioned after one bad incident too many. It wasn't very long, however, before that disillusionment disappeared and I became tempted to start editing again - and it wasn't long after *that* when that temptation became just too great. So back I came, but now editing anonymously - when I retired as Bluebird207, I went so far as to change my password to something I'd never remember.

I was probably better off *not* coming back. There were more bad incidents - and worse, some of them from my time as Bluebird207 still lingered in my memory. And one of these incidents was the disagreement that you and I had in October 2014 regarding the Michigan license plate article.

I will never, *ever* deny that *I* was the one who started this disagreement - by not going along with this series of absolutely reasonable edits that you made mere minutes after I had finished a series of my own edits. In that very long post I left you in March 2016, I said that this was because I had a terrible head cold at the time, which affected my judgement (and I added that this was no excuse whatsoever). But in fact, that *wasn't* the only reason - I will admit now that I have Asperger's, and one of the ways this affects me is that more often than not when something happens that I don't expect, I don't take it very well.

I did not expect you - or, indeed, anyone else - to make a series of edits so soon after mine, and say things like "items in boldface should not be linked", "remove unnecessary link", "fixing dash issues" and "adding missing quotation marks" in the summaries. And sure enough, I did not take it well at all: first I partially reverted one of your edits with a rather mean-spirited summary (you rightly reverted it back), then I demanded an explanation for these edits here on your talk page, and finally when you provided that explanation I replied back in a rather mean-spirited manner.

You had every right to be annoyed with me after that, and to tell me to leave your talk page in peace. But as you were telling me that, you also said, "You should be using this energy to improve the other mediocre examples to match, not tearing apart improvements and driving away interested editors (from the Michigan license plate article and similar articles for other states); if that was your desire, to push people away (from these articles) and enforce mediocrity (on these articles), you've achieved your goal."

I will tell you now, I was SERIOUSLY mad when you said that. Truly, deeply, incredibly mad. I don't deny that *I* was being a jerk (though I didn't realize it immediately), but "if it was your desire to drive other editors away from that article, you've succeeded"? I'm really sorry, Imzadi, but you really can *not* deny that *you* were a bit of a jerk too when you said that.

As I said, you had every right to be annoyed with me - but really, no matter how much another editor is bugging you and how annoyed you are with them, it is *not* a good idea to say things like that to them. You *do* have to admit, that particular thing *does* imply - even with the "if" - that you *do* think that that other editor wants to drive everyone away from the article and have it all to themselves, editing it solely to their standards (mediocre or otherwise). And you also have to admit, most of the time you really can *not* prove that that is what that other editor wants to do. Although I was being a jerk, I certainly did *not* have any desire to drive you or anyone else away - and if I *had* had such a desire, I would have reverted every single one of your edits without a second thought.

(Mind you, I actually *did* revert a whole series of edits by one editor on the New Hampshire license plate article in late 2017. And it was a *huge* series of edits, too - over forty of them, in fact. That editor was annoyed with me too, but I had no desire to drive *them* away either - I just felt that they had been just a bit too careless. And ultimately I *didn't* drive them away, as they made quite a few edits to that article after that incident *and* after I retired as Bluebird207.)

Anyway, I was seriously mad. So much so that, rather than leave you alone as you asked me to, I took the matter to ANI. That was another stupid move that, quite understandably, made you even more annoyed with me, and could - and maybe even should - have gotten me blocked. (I apologize for being a nosey parker here - but I see that in your nearly nineteen years of editing Wikipedia, you have not gotten involved in many ANI discussions, and indeed since October 2014 you have gotten involved in just *one* such discussion. That suggests to me that you are *not* keen about getting involved in ANI discussions of any kind, which is absolutely understandable. And so I feel that I should apologize, belated as this is, for being mad enough to start *that* particular discussion.)

Only *then* did I realize that I'd made a right fool of myself. But it still hurt me quite a lot to have been told, "If it was your desire to drive other editors away from that article, you've succeeded". I tried to demonstrate to you that I did not have such a desire - first at the very end of our disagreement, then in that March 2016 post. And on neither occasion did you tell me that you believed me - in fact, on neither occasion did you tell me *anything* about what you believed. This particularly hurt me on the second occasion - I found myself thinking, "If you're still annoyed with me a year and a half on, fine, but do you *still* think I *do* want to drive other users away? Are you *really* not believing me when I tell you that I don't?"

Eventually, the hurt subsided. But thereafter (both before and after I retired as Bluebird207), each time the whole affair came back into my mind, I continued to feel irritation over "If that was your desire..." et cetera, and you not telling me whether or not you believed me when I said that that was not my desire - while, of course, reminding myself that it had all been my fault, and that I had been a jerk towards you.

And then... just under two weeks ago, the whole affair came back into my mind once again. And this time, try as I did, I couldn't make it go away. At all. It lingered. Really, really lingered.

And before I knew it, I was seriously mad once again. Mad enough that I wanted retribution of some kind. I wanted you to feel guilty about saying "If that was your desire..." et cetera, and about not telling me whether or not that was still your belief when I had presented you with the opportunity to do so. I wanted to teach you a lesson; I wanted you to pay the price. It would be like a celebrity facing the music over horrible things that he/she/they had said on social media years ago.

So what did I do? I could have gone to ANI again; I could have started reverting your many edits to articles on U.S. and Michigan highways and said horrible things in the summaries; I could have gone on this talk page and called you an A-hole (with the two omitted letters), or a vagina (or rather, the awful four-letter synonym starting with 'C'), or a mofo (again, with the omitted letters), or even worse. Instead, I turned on my VPN, and pretended to be various Americans, Canadians and Brits politely criticizing you for your actions (and often using the exact same words that you had said to me during our disagreement, including "badgered", "harassed", and "those are your words, not mine"). Where I could edit the talk page for the IP address I was at (sometimes I could; sometimes I found that I couldn't and so I turned my VPN off and turned it on again to get onto an address at a different range), I pinged you and away I went.

The post to you on the talk page for an American IP address that featured the transcript of the "Did you threaten to overrule him?" interview from BBC TV's Newsnight, which I have to assume you're not greatly familiar with? *I* posted that. The post to you on the talk page for a British IP address that featured the last lines of W. B. Yeats' "Under Ben Bulben", a poem I have to assume you're not greatly familiar with either? *I* posted that, too.

And then I took it further, and made those troll posts in which I pretended that a highway near to the city where you are originally from had been named in your honor, and I congratulated you for it and pinged other very experienced editors - including the most experienced one of them all, the legendary Ser Amantio di Nicolao - to express "disapproval" that they were not congratulating you too. I have to admit, I'm quite surprised that Auric fell for it to some extent, as indicated by his post up there...

I made all those VPN posts not only out of madness, but hurt too. The same hurt that had accompanied my madness in October 2014, and that I had felt again in March 2016. And let me tell you: how completely, utterly wrong I was to think that by making those posts, I would relieve that hurt and throw it back to you. Because, in fact, I made myself *even more* hurt. It was like looking to punch a punching bag so hard that I knocked the bag over, but instead the bag quickly swung back and *I* was the one who was knocked over.

Now *everything* about this whole affair - October 2014, March 2016, those VPN posts - *completely* took over my mind, to the extent that concentrating on other thoughts was almost impossible, no matter where I was or what I was doing (at home on my laptop or trying to sleep, or going for a long walk around the town in which I live). I was so, *so* hurt - and I do *not* think I am exaggerating when I say that had I gone to a doctor, there's a non-zero chance that he or she would have diagnosed me with depression. And all of it, every single bit of it, was *my* fault, *my* doing.

Had I thought just that little bit more clearly in October 2014, manned up just that little bit more, put my Asperger's and my head cold to one side, and fully accepted that series of edits you made to the Michigan license plate article - no partial reversions, no mean-spiritedness - *none* of these unpleasant events would have taken place, and I would have *never* made myself so hurt. It may well have still been that other bad incidents disillusioned me enough to retire as Bluebird207 (and I was then tempted back as an anonymous editor), but it certainly would *not* have been that you were so annoyed that you said a jerk thing like "If that was your desire..." et cetera, and removed the Michigan license plate article from your watchlist with no intention of editing it ever again. (Though I note that license plates don't appear to have ever really been your thing anyway - you were not a particularly frequent editor of that article, and AFAIK you have never edited any of the similar articles for other states, not even neighboring states like Wisconsin or Ohio. Did you have that article on your watchlist *mainly* because it's to do with your home state?)

As it was, making myself so hurt led me to contemplate. To really wonder if, after fifteen years, was it worth editing Wikipedia in any way any more? Had the fun of it gone for good, and how much better would it be for me - and my mental health - if I never edited Wikipedia again in any way, and never again gave in to the temptation to do so, no matter how great that temptation was? I already knew that no version of Wikipedia - English, Simple English, French, Spanish, Japanese, et cetera - was ever going to be perfect and complete in every way, even in the never-to-be-possible scenario that every single editor of it - with a username, or anonymous - behaved perfectly and followed each and every one of the many, *many* rules and guidelines, without even the slightest step out of line.

And ultimately I decided, yes, I *was* - indeed, *am* - better off not editing Wikipedia in any way any more. In fact, I might be better off not editing *any* wiki any more. I have edited a number of other wikis over the years, and I have gotten involved in bad incidents on these wikis too - and some of these incidents have been, just like our disagreement, *my* fault as a result of not taking it well when another editor has edited an article in a certain way so soon after I have made my own edit. I don't wish to describe any of *these* incidents in great detail, and I will not name the wikis or the other editors involved - but I *will* say that just like here, I have gotten seriously mad, to the point where I've believed that I've had to retaliate in some way to try to teach these editors a lesson, and I *have* retaliated, only to succeed in hurting myself even more.

I even decided that cutting down the time I spend on my laptop each day might be very good for me. There's a great, big, real world I want to explore, and to devote more of my time to exploring - and there is no excuse for not doing this, especially now that the worst of COVID is well in the past. Indeed, there's no excuse for not exploring more of Ireland, my home for the past twenty-three years, when I can go anywhere in it without having to pay a cent thanks to my free travel pass.

But before I walked away, there was one last thing I wanted to do. And that was to make this confession to you, however long it would be.

I must say, making this confession is a leap of faith to some extent. All the time I was editing as Bluebird207, I did my level best to stay the right side of the line, to stay out of trouble and not do something that would get me blocked. In October 2014, I crossed that line completely, and I created a great deal of trouble for myself and for you - as I said, I could and maybe even should have been blocked for it, and I considered myself lucky that I wasn't. Nearly ten years later - after more bad incidents, more madness, more hurt, and this tearing open of an old wound (by making those VPN posts) - how would I feel about seeing "Bluebird207 blocked with an expiration time of indefinite", and whatever reason(s) was/were stated (abusing multiple accounts, violation of the harassment policy, et cetera)? I'd feel bad, of course I would - but I actually *don't* think I'd feel as bad as I might have done had this happened before the end of 2018.

You may or may not agree, but I've come to fully realize that being blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia does *not* necessarily mean that you're a bad person in real life. Indeed, getting annoyed and doing jerk things on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that you're a bad person in real life, either. In all these years since our disagreement and you saying to me "If that was your desire..." et cetera, I have never once thought - moments of madness notwithstanding - that you, Imzadi, are a bad person in real life. For all I know, you could be a very, *very* popular person in real life, very pleasant and great fun to be around. (Plenty such people here in Ireland - and not just the people you might expect to see in a traditional Irish pub.)

I don't think of myself as a bad person in real life, though I certainly do have my faults and my limitations - some of these as a result of my Asperger's; some not. What I would absolutely *hate*, though, is if I did enough bad things on Wikipedia or any other site (wikis aside, I post on a few forums, but don't post on social media) that it had a permanent negative effect of some sort on my real life. Being so hurt after making those VPN posts, and tearing open that old wound, was what I now consider a warning sign.

Much as this confession is a leap of faith to an extent, I wanted to make it before I walked away, because I felt that not doing so would *also* not be good for me in the long term. Well, *anything* you have on your chest that you really should get off it - it's not good for you if you don't get it off, is it?

And when you make a confession like this one, you usually have to apologize for the things you have confessed to doing, regardless whether or not your apologies will be accepted. And apologizing is exactly what I am going to do here. Imzadi, I am sorry - I truly am - for making those VPN posts to you. And I am sorry, too - again, I truly am - for all the other things I did that made you annoyed with me. For being mean-spirited in my edit summaries and on your talk page, for not leaving you alone the first time you asked me to, for being seriously mad and taking the matter to ANI. Sorry, sorry, and sorry once more.

Well, I guess that's finally it. This really has taken me *literal* hours to type up - and I'm not counting the time I've been away from my laptop since I started to type it (like when I've been sleeping in my bed, or mowing my front lawn). And I know that the moment I post it, the fight against the temptation to edit Wikipedia again will once more resume - but this time, I am resolving to not lose this fight.

I won't be turning my back on Wikipedia altogether, however, because I'm quite certain I won't be able to do *that*. Even if I *do* cut down the number of hours I spend on my laptop each day, chances are that whenever I look for a piece of information on the Internet, the appropriate Wikipedia article will be at or near the top of the Google results, and I will visit that article. But any temptation I have to edit that article, I *will* fight, no matter how great it is. Like many people, I have made plenty of resolutions over the years that I haven't kept (and not just New Year's resolutions) - but this one, to not lose this fight against temptation, I *do* want to keep.

Imzadi, reading every single word of this very, *very* long post is the *only* thing I would like you to do. Whatever you do afterwards regarding this post is completely up to you. You can reply to it if you so desire, even if I never read this reply (I won't be replying back in any case, because doing so *will* mean losing this fight against temptation, and failing to keep my resolution). You can decide that while other editors can reply if *they* so desire, *you* will not - it may well be that after all these years, you still want to keep your distance from me (whether you accept my apologies or not), and what I have said (and linked to) in this post has brought back memories that are too painful for you. And you can decide to delete this post altogether - whether because you still want to keep your distance from me, or because it's way too long a post to be archived, or indeed both of those reasons.

But if indeed you *have* read every single word of this post, however long it has taken you, then I have just two words: thank you.

All the very best to you in the future, both here on Wikipedia and in real life.

Bluebird207 @ 2A02:8084:F1BE:C780:307D:90BE:187A:D73B (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Odd message

I just discovered I had been mentioned (named and shamed, actually) in an odd message from @204.48.31.214 upbraiding me for not congratulating you on "having M-35 named after [you]". I can't find anything in the article history suggesting this. Could you explain what's going on? (Congratulations if it's true.) Auric talk 21:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Auric: see below. That's all I will say on this matter. Imzadi 1979 → 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks.--Auric talk 23:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why I am here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

MN 36

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for what you've done to help me expand the article. I'm still learning (as you can probably tell) and I forgot to publish a change last night, so there was quite a merge conflict today. Sorry for anything I may have overwritten and please feel free to make any necessary changes. Thanks again! NotDragonius (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

US-127

I've been trying to find out the change of the northern terminus of US-127 in Lansing for some time, but have never been able to find a definitive answer, and MichiganHighways.org is the source of the confusion. The site mentions that it was first at Kalamazoo and what would eventually become Larch before it was rerouted over a reconfigured Cedar at Kalamazoo (1930). But by 1950, the entry on the website mentions that US-127 and a rerouted US-27 now "runs concurrently with its own parent route (US-27) for even longer than it had in the past—1½ miles." This would seem to imply that US-127's northern terminus was extended northward sometime before then. Can you find anything on when US-127 was extended northward to run concurrently run with US-127? Criticalthinker (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: I read that as indicating that US 27 was shifted such that it joined with US 127 at a new location south of its old merger point, meaning the two overlapped a longer distance to US 127's terminal point at US 16. That's what the Lansing insets at the maps around that time period appear to show. They don't conclusively indicate that US 127 was route to US 16, but they do show that US 27/M-78 did shift to intersect US 127 at a more southerly location at Main & Cedar instead of Kalamazoo & Cedar. Imzadi 1979 → 20:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm still confused. On Michigan Highways, we are told that US-127 ends Cedar/Larch & Kalamazoo. As such, it wouldn't ever run concurrently/overlap with US-27...until whenever it must have been extended north. That's what I'm asking about. The 1950 entry reads "extended northward for even longer than it had in the past." So when was the terminus of US-127 moved northward? Criticalthinker (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Roads in Bulgaria

Hello, I see that you constantly change the assessment ratings of the second class roads of Bulgaria. I don't know how you do assessments for WikiProject Highways, but for WPBG I follow the general Wikipedia guidelines, which for a Stub articles state: "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria." I can also check the description of a Start article from there. According to that description, this article for example does meet at least two of the listed criteria, with only one required to meet the standard. In general the articles for the second class roads in Bulgaria have sources, a full route description, an infobox and subheadings, which if compared to the listed Stub and Start criteria I believe is closer to the latter. Therefore, I suggest that you do not remove the Start rating, and if you insist on having the Stub rating, place it only for WP Highways. I will wait for your response, before re-adding the Start-class. Let me know if you wish the Stub class to remain for WP Highways. Regards, Gligan1 (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:StateNameIndia

Template:StateNameIndia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Capitol Highway

Thanks for helping with my draft. Could you please help me figure out why the map line is black and not red? In the GeoJSON it is red, I think. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechie: the line is red in the draft's infobox. The color is set in the GeoJSON file on Commons, and unless it's specifically overridden in the template call in the article, that's the color that appears in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I did set it red in the GeoJSON, iirc. Maybe I missed something. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechie: the line on the map appears in red for me, and it has ever since the Commons map file was used. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Things to confess, and a desire

You *have* at least read this, haven't you, Imzadi? Bluebird207 @ 2A02:8084:F1BE:C780:DD05:F2DE:3E03:8208 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry if this sounds rude, but this looks like a lousy attempt at conflict resolution, especially the language in which you "ask" Imzadi to "apologize". thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Australian Roads/taskforce

Template:WikiProject Australian Roads/taskforce has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Indian roads/taskforce

Template:WikiProject Indian roads/taskforce has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I really, really like how you designed your profile page. Great work! Damnits (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Every now and then, I see your name popping up in various New Jersey articles. I was worried when it looked like most road editors would leave for the new wiki, so I'm glad to see people around here still. Cheers to people like you Imzadi working on this glorious mess of a project that we call Wikipedia! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Hurricanehink! As long as the articles are still here and not mass-deleted, someone needs to keep a bit of an eye on some of them. (Plus, there are some improvements and additions here that can be pulled over there.)

My editing activity is definitely split between the two sites, especially now that we're working on building out all of the assessment infrastructure and importing more countries' articles into the site. I've even fired up a bot of my own over there in support of some of that assessment activity when it can be automated. That said, I also have non-roads stuff here that I'll still work on from time to time. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. It takes a lot of time to build up that infrastructure, such as assessment, and building out all of the links. I'm glad there are some people around, as roads are one of those often-overlooked aspects of society that we don't think about until things go wrong. And some of the roads have centuries of history by now, making them just as significant to our day-to-day as natural landmarks. And speaking of, I've been interested in working on some California road articles. I wondered if there are any ongoing task forces, or potential collaborators, for a California road task force. I see that this page exists, but IDK if there's anyone still around here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There are a few California editors still around that didn't make the move completely. There are still some headwinds on this site. An article on a Minnesota highway was promoted at GAN and then nominated at DYK. During a discussion about the DYK hook, someone has already mentioned that the article shouldn't have passed GAN based on the maps RfC, so I wouldn't be surprised if that article gets sent to GAR. There was some pushback in that discussion, so maybe it won't be delisted.

There are also a few things from AARW that can be back ported to Wikipedia. For instance, I redid most of the maps for Michigan using direct exports from OpenStreetMap to avoid the ambiguous copyright status of the old KML-orginated maps traced on Google Earth. Those GeoJSON map files were uploaded to Commons, meaning they could be used here as well, and they are. The mapping gadget we're using on AARW is superior in several respects to the map templates in the infoboxes here, but the Michigan articles on extant highways here have the same base map data as AARW articles. Imzadi 1979 → 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

WV Route 108 Removal

Hi there! I was just wondering about you removing the WB Route 108 Removal on the US 52 page- I was just adding sources, and was about to edit everything again. I don’t want to get into any argument, but I was just wondering if we could talk about it, thanks! Xuppu (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xuppu: that amount of content... it should really be its own article instead of interrupting the flow of the subject of that article. Since we don't have West Virginia Route 108 yet, that should be created. Imzadi 1979 → 02:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok- Thanks! Xuppu (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me! Could you possibly make the WV route 108 image? Thanks! Xuppu (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Already done. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Should we edit the King Coal Highway section on the U.S. 52 page? Because a lot of the same information is on it. Xuppu (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note

I am unrelated to the IP whose edits you reverted as unconstructive. Please don't get me confused with them. Idkyouthinkofone (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Idkyouthinkofone: you restored those edits, and are responsible for the content of them. They're still not good edits and should be reverted. Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

i know, i only did it to restore the history section. I've since fixed my error. Idkyouthinkofone (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox roads

Hello! Similar to a request we had in March, if you look at the Template:Infobox road for Italian roads taking Raccordo autostradale RA2 as an example, we think the position of "Autostrada Connection 2" and "Raccordo autostradale 2" should be swapped and the capital "c" in the English name to be in lowercase. This would make it easier to understand the meaning of the acronym in the icon above, in this case "RA2". "Autostrada Connection 2" should also be entirely changed to "Motorway connection 2" as that is the true English. Lastly, can you please enlarge the icons at the very bottom of the infobox that indicate the previous and next junction as they are fairly illegible. Could be same size as the legible ones at Autostrada A2 (Italy) for example. Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry not sure if this is an unreasonable request? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

highway 50 end point

I have a statement from the Wisconsin DOT about the new Eastern endpoint for state highway 50.

What is the best way to send you the email or contact information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakdaze2008 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Brakdaze2008: did they publish it some place, or is this a private email or letter? If it's the latter, it doesn't count as a verifiable source per policy. In short, we require our sources to be available to the public. That could mean that the source is online or sitting in a library. Private correspondence fails to meet that test unless it is archived someplace accessible to the public. Imzadi 1979 → 11:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:RJL

Hello, I saw that you put Template:RJL on some of the road pages I’ve made, I’m wondering how to correctly format a junction list (if you could give an example, description, etc). Thanks! CubanoBoi (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: you'll want to look at MOS:RJL.

Checking out Draft:4-112 (Cuba)# Junction list, there are a few specifics.

1. In the Municipality column, if multiple rows have the same entry, we would set a single cell to span the rows. In other words, Ranchuelo should span the first three rows of the table in that column, Cruces should span the next four rows of the table in that column, etc.
2. The same thing should happen in the Location column.
3. There should be two columns for lengths, one labeled "km" and one "mi". (No arrows.) They should have the numbers right aligned. {{convert}} can handle that for you with |disp=table. If you have a source for the distances, it would be good to put that in the header for the km column.
4. The Destination column looks good, but:
   1. There should be a non-breaking space ( ) in front of any en dash (–) to prevent the dash from wrapping to a new line.
   2. There are notes in the last row that should be in the notes column. (Instead of saying which is left/right and which is straight ahead, we would normally use a note like "roadway continues as Port Road".)
   3. The marker graphics should have |alt=|link= set. Using {{jct}} would simplify a lot of that.

A lot of this can be handled by using a template related to {{jctint}} to build each row of the table. There doesn't seem to be one set up for Cuba yet, but @Fredddie: should be able to help do that quickly.

Really, this example is pretty close to following the basics of MOS:RJL. It just needs a few tweaks. Imzadi 1979 → 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! But question, would “Alt=“ be “Road sign of ___” or something similar? CubanoBoi (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: on those small graphics, no. They're considered decorative, so we don't supply alt text for them. If we removed them completely, the text next to it should still stand on its own to impart the information to a reader. {{jct}} has been set up that way for a long time for that reason. Imzadi 1979 → 17:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

um

can you fix my edits to the Meritt parkway article? 172.59.215.77 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Two suggestions, IP:

1. Register an account here to make it easier to communicate with you and to track your editing.
2. Go slowly with your editing. Preview things frequently and double check your spelling along the way.

Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

parkway article

i rewrote it again after my block expired just so you know. 73.33.117.12 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohio River Bridges Project

As this subject is a highway/roads project, shouldn't it be in the Highways or U.S. Roads WikiProject? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@StefenTower: bridges aren't in the project's scope. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a bridges project. It's also a major highway reconstruction project that included the reconstruction of the Kennedy Interchange and other highway work. Don't go by the title alone. The first couple paragraphs in the article summarize it. This clearly belongs in either or both the Highways and U.S. Roads projects. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The content that's in scope would be contained in the appropriate highways articles anyway, like the Kennedy Interchange or the individual highways. I looked at the article, and it doesn't fit the USRD defined scope. Imzadi 1979 → 01:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How does inclusion of a subarticle in USRD help attract editors to improve this article? This is clearly a U.S. highway project. I believe this is rather obvious from reading the article. If you can't see to restore the projects, I'm going to have to do the unusual thing of appealing your decision (in fact, I don't think I've ever had to do this before). Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

US Route 63 Wisconsin section

There is no page for specifically the section of U.S. Route 63 in Wisconsin. (Actually there is but it redirects to the national level article). I'd like to create the page, can you help me with that? I'm good at writing route descriptions and have added them to highway articles that were missing it, like I did with Wisconsin Highway 78 for example, so I'd be able to write the RD. Cyber the tiger (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger: it would be best if you have the resources and time to work on a history section for such an article. There are various forces at play that have not been conducive to new highway articles. If such an article isn't really differentiated from the existing section in the national article, it may just be best to keep the status quo.

That said, https://wiki.aaroads.com would welcome such an article you could create from the beginning. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

but there are state level articles for this highway in the other states, and Minnesota, where the route is shorter, has its own article Cyber the tiger (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That maybe what happened before, but since about 2022, the mood has shifted. When things got bad enough last year, most of the project forked away, and the serious editing moved there. The other site already has a better cartography solution, among other positive solutions. It's a small group, but the content is improving more over there. 01:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Imzadi 1979 → 01:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

US Route 12 length citation

So I saw you undid my change of adding a citation for the length of U.S. Route 12 stating that it's old and incorrect. If you have the up to date length with a citation, I kindly ask you add the citation.

Also keep in mind, the page I cited said it was last updated in 2017, so not exactly 35 years old

Therealteal (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Therealteal: the page itself says that the length it gives is from 1989. Imzadi 1979 → 17:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct. They said the most recent update they could find was 1989, but the page itself is from 2017.

But again, you said the data is incorrect, so I'm asking you update the article with a citation. If you don't have anything suggesting it's wrong, can we just put that citation back? Therealteal (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't going to be one single citation since AASHTO hasn't bothered to update their log for the public in 35 years. The highway has been rerouted in places, and it's had its terminus in Detroit shifted a handful of times since 1989, so that figure is quite out of date. The better answer will be to consult the sub article on each state, and do the math to recompute the length correctly, citing the sources for each state from Washington to Michigan. Dumping in a known inaccurate figure because it's so outdated isn't the answer. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Doing the math be engaging in original research which isn't allowed. WP:TRUTH talks about how verifiability is more important than the Truth^TM.

Again, if you can find a source saying otherwise, I ask that you share it. Otherwise, the verifiable source is the article put out by the Federal Highway Administration. And thus, I recommend we add the reputable and verifiable source back.

Therealteal (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Routine calculations are not OR. See WP:CALC.

U.S. Route 12#Route description already has a cited table of all of the lengths of each state's segments. Changing the infobox to list a 35-year-old figure puts it in contradiction to that table.

I just updated that table with South Dakota's length and citation. That adjusted the overall length slightly. Since the infobox is part of the lead, and content in the lead that's cited in the body, such as that table, does not require a citation. If you think it does require a citation, we bundle the 10 footnotes into the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 18:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well I look forward to your update with this calculation. Therealteal (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Imzadi1979. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Apology.
Message added 16:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I sent the mail yesterday. Hope you'll read it and understand. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cite Google Maps

Please do not edit against consensus. Please undo your edits. Polygnotus (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: my edit is not designed to be against consensus. By default, the author is missing from all invocations of the template, unless it is specifically desired on an article that cites corporate authors consistently, like several dozen highway FAs. You don't want it, you don't get it. If you want it, you should still be able to have it. Imzadi 1979 → 15:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus is to remove a parameter, and you add it back in (even if you make it optional), it is still against consensus. But you knew that already. Please respect the WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: then what you would like me to do with M-1 (Michigan highway), a Featured Article using this template. If you look at fn 1, fn 4, fn 5, fn 7, fn 61, fn 64, fn 68, fn 73-81, all of those list the author of the maps being cited, but now fn 9 does not. It's inconsistent. That's one FA, and I could do a similar listing with 30 more FAs on state highways in Michigan. If I can have an optional parameter to restore the author, then we should both be happy. You don't have the author anymore, and I still can have it for consistency. The alternative is that a template created by highway article authors for highway articles will end up abandoned by those same authors. Imzadi 1979 → 15:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To me, this perceived lack of consistency is not a problem, but editing against consensus is a big problem. If it is important to you then you can use the talkpage to get consensus. I deleted some links [1]. Polygnotus (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: that's now how things are handled when nominating articles at FAC. Either way, I'll just manually cite the maps in the future and abandon the convenience template. Imzadi 1979 → 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is forced to use the template, manually citing is fine, in whatever way you prefer. There is quite a bit of freedom in that area. I think there is a larger group that wants things a certain way when using that template, which clashes with your personal preference. I have added a few buttons to the wikieditor so I can easily insert text strings the way I want them to be. You could consider doing something similar if you want to. Polygnotus (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the unintended block

Hi. When dealing with a sockpuppet case in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/That guy who plays games, the tool I use to block and manage the cases pre-selected you for a block because your username had been mentioned in the report. I didn't notice this until it was raised to me on my talk page. Please be assured that this was an accidental block and there are no accusations of sockpuppetry. Apologies for this, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

i-94

I added info on current rebuilds. Why did you remove it? 104.37.208.5 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

I'm thinking of creating an Interstate 24 state-level article, but I'm not sure what the section in Tennessee and Georgia should be called. Should I just call it Interstate 24 in Tennessee, or Interstate 24 in Tennessee and Georgia? Let me know your thoughts and I'll respond back ASAP. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: I think we determined that for now that I-24 didn't warrant splitting into sub articles. U.S. Route 8 doesn't have separate articles because the section in Minnesota is an order of magnitude longer than the section in Michigan, and the section in Wisconsin is another order of magnitude longer than the one in Minnesota. (We're talking ~2 mi., ~ 20 mi., ~200 mi., respectively.) I think the situation is similar enough with I-24 that we don't need to split it up on state lines because so much of it is in Tennessee. You'd have to deal with that short segment in Georgia to compound the awkwardness. The Tennessee segment is over half of the highway, and it's twice the length of the next longest state segment in Kentucky. So basically the parent article and a potential Tennessee article are going to be mostly the same as each other. Additionally, the current article covers the topic well without exceeding the usual measures under WP:SIZE for splitting. I don't see what we would gain except making five articles on a topic when one covers it appropriately now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm not convinced that we needed to split up Interstate 59. The reason we create state-detail articles is that with something like Interstate 75 or U.S. Route 2, there's just so much to cover that it isn't feasible to do so in a single article. A single junction list table for those long highways wouldn't be possible for a variety of reasons.

While we have an informal "three-state" rule, that rule should never be read to require splitting if a highway runs through three states. Rather, it's a minimum requirement to consider a split. Just because I-24 and I-59 hit four states each, that does not mean that we are required to split out articles. I'd be tempted to say that I-59 should be merged back together. (I-59 isn't even that much longer than Interstate 75 in Michigan.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been looking at the Interstate 78 articles, and what about that? I-78 is a lot shorter than I-59. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a heads-up.

I think I corrected most of it??? Maybe not. I don't know. Cfeddse (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cfeddse: please stop removing former interchanges from the exit list. As for other interchanges that may be missing, please make a note of them on the article's talk page. As for the rest of your edits today, I'll take a look later. (I'm just on a lunch break at the moment.) What I saw has issues. Please proofread your edits for spelling and grammatical errors. You don't have to be perfect on the first edit, but if you find something, you should be fixing it. Otherwise, you are making more work for someone else to eventually fix. Imzadi 1979 → 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I fixed most of them though. yes there are still some, as well as bare urls, but I was gonna fix the latter by using refill. Also, shouldn't the article cover the Northeast Extension? That was built as part of the New Jersey stretch in the early to mid 1950s. Cfeddse (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cfeddse: there's already Interstate 476 to cover the Northeast Extension.

I've once again reverted your edits. I found a dozen spelling errors and other issues in a single paragraph. I'm afraid that the effort to clean up after you exceeds the benefits we may be gaining from your work. The attempt to spell check the last revision crashed the spell checker in my browser twice. That was several minutes of my time lost. That's before I could try to tag other issues in the revision of the article. Perhaps a blanket reversion like that is a bit harsh, but I don't think so in this case.

In addition, you added opinions into the article in Wikipedia's voice, a violation of WP:NPOV, a core policy. You added a citation for that opinion but did not attribute that opinion to the source. Additionally, that source is self-published, which is another problem.

I would strongly suggest that you find simpler articles to edit and to make smaller edits. Trying to add 11K of text to an article takes some skill and finesse. I don't think that you have that skill at this time.

Lastly, some of these issues are reminiscent of another editor who has had his account blocked from editing. That editor has created new accounts to evade that block, which is a violation of policy. If you are that same person, continuing down this path will likely prompt someone to request a check at WP:SPI. If that investigation returns a positive result, your account will be blocked as well. If not, then it's just an interesting coincidence. Consider this a strong warning either way to stop your current pattern of editing. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant substandard as in nonstandard,because they were of a nonstandard design. That is hardly NPOV. Cfeddse (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cfeddse: no, you added this opinion: "However, this proved a bad choice". Bad to whom? "Bad" is an opinion, and opinions have to be attributed to the person who holds it and not stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Yes, you cited that statement, but you did not state who said the choice was bad. That citation is to a self-published source (SPS). SPSs aren't generally acceptable for our use, doubly so for opinions. Then when I read through the source, it doesn't say that the choice was bad. It says that the state's "attorney general convinced the governor that it would be in the best interest of the state if there was a speed limit on the Turnpike, and a week before the highway opened, it was announced that a 50 MPH limit would be imposed." That does not track with what you wrote at all, meaning we have an issue of source–text integrity as well.

All in all, you've got some bad editing practices and a lack of spelling skill. You're trying to make large edits to an article that exceed your skills. Let me reiterate yet again that you need to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run. You're trying to run with this article, and it's not working. Imzadi 1979 → 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)