This is an archive of past discussions with User:Imzadi1979. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Mcdonaat/sandbox looks fine to me, however... I'd suggest converting it to have actual columns with information. This is the prime location where all of the lengths could be listed in a sortable table. Then a reader could sort by length and voilà, they can find the shortest or longest highway. Also, I wouldn't mix in the US Highways with the state routes. Take a look at:
You're not talking about some kind of source, then. I would have to go to NewsBank when I get back to the library that has free access, but I could get that.
Meanwhile, you seem to have declared some of the sources unreliable. I can only say that Robert H. Malme shows where he got the information but it wouldn't be a simple matter for us to get to what he saw.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·20:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Fredddie got it right: a complete reference to an article in print should have its page number. If it was published online only, it doesn't need a page number, however it should have its URL and access date. As for the other issue, WP:SPS applies. Some of his sources are other SPSs as well. It should be possible to get copies of the various newspaper sources he used, confirm his information and then cite the direct sources. Good luck, Imzadi 1979→22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, blogs are almost never appropriate for use under SPS, especially in a case where an old map would verify the old exit number in question. Imzadi 1979→23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It might be possible to get the newspaper sources. It depends on whether NewsBank has them. Fortunately, I can go to a library that has it frequently. If I don't get the results I'm looking for, I won't bother. I am trying to find other information through NewsBank as well. But I believe in including information in Wikipedia if it looks good regardless of whether the sources meet Hyacinth Bucket's standards. I believe we're better off with what appears to be reliable information than having very little information just because it doesn't meet certain impossible standards. Sometimes the information just isn't found in the right places, but that to me doesn't meet we should be deprived.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Except that if an article relies on SPSs, someone could remove the citations that aren't supported by policy and replace them with {{citation needed|date=July 2012}} tags, and eventually, that could mean that the information itself is removed. Imzadi 1979→13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that just brings down the quality of the encyclopedia. I know what you're saying, but it's not our fault if good information isn't found in reliable sources, and I have no intention of letting this be an encyclopedia without information people might want to see just because people are so picky.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You can see what I hope will be good results tomorrow afternoon. I'll contiunue searching and may even go to the state highway people in the near future--I actually passed by the office which I think covers the Greensboro area but had other things I needed to do.
But here are some examples. The Smallville article is patrolled by someone who interprets our rules here literally. I get frustrated trying to ad stuff, but I know in one case I said few people have heard the closing theme music, yet you'd never know it from the article. Where did I get this? Of course. Just because "I know" The WB and The CW never had closing credits music doesn't mean people watching their shows haven't heard it. This is perfectly logical. But one of these days I hope to find proof those networks didn't have closing credits music, and then I CAN say that, and let people draw their own conclusions.
Meanwhile, we have no biography of Dr. Emilio Bombay except in my userspace because most of what I've found isn't really that good, and the majority of that is from LinkedIn, which I was told not to use. I still have it as a reference in one article, because I was not able to find the information elsewhere. And then there is Laura McKenzie, also still in my userspace. There's a detailed biography, but very promotional and not independent, and very little other information I can use. Come on, people, these are notable people! Someone MUST have written something I can use to get these people out there.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If the information is notable, there will be RSs that cover it, and that's the requirement of policy. There are exceptions to SPS policy that allow their use, however, you have yet to justify the inclusion of a blog and the hobbyist pages of a non-expert as sources in the I-73 article. I'm sorry, but it sounds slightly like laziness. I've spent money and time to do the research that I've done for the articles I've worked on. Now maybe you're willing to expend the time, money and effort to replace the sources, and I hope that you do. I'm just standing by the requirements of policy and the expectations of working that I've had to follow in the past to get 10 articles listed as Featured Articles and another 180 or so Good Articles, which can't use SPSs. Imzadi 1979→01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not spending money. And at some point I'm not going to push any harder to do certain things. Good and featured articles are not my goals. My goal is to get information that I have been able to find into the encyclopedia. If it looks good, that's good enough for me. You can't call me lazy. I've worked hard on these articles that I've contributed to. I'm sorry if you're willing to work harder than I am, but even though I have the time, at some point I can only do so much. As far as these SPS pages being those of a "hobbyist", somewhere I learned they were "official". I don't know where that is. Now what I may do is contact the highway people on this, since I pass by a highway office on the way to where I am now, and it would be as simple as remembering.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
MDOT points people to http://www.michiganhighways.org/ which is a hobbyist's website. However, that doesn't negate that website's status as a self-published source. Unless or until the authors of these websites are recognized as "experts in their fields" as policy requires, we can't use them, period. And really, this shouldn't be a "I'll use it until I can find something better"; it should be a full prohibition. Imzadi 1979→17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was really like that I would have gotten so frustrated I would have left and you wouldn't have all my hard work. Furthermore, you would have a LOT of stuff missing. I think Hyacinth Bucket needs to let Onslow edit from time to time.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that not everyone can or does apply the policy at all opportunities. There's also a difference between being honestly ignorant of the policy and willfully disregarding it. Once it's brought to an editor's awareness that we just don't allow any source to be used, that editor should be willing to improve their sourcing practices. Wikipedia is viewed skeptically or poorly in some circles. I had a discussion with a professor at Central Michigan University once and mentioned that we had a policy that requires reliable sources. He was impressed that we really did care about what we use for sources. If you think it's onerous to exclude self-published hobbyist websites, you should read WP:MEDRS. The medical articles don't allow some medical journal articles, even if they are published in the Journal of the American Medical Association or Lancet, the British equivalent. They only allow articles that are secondary reviews of medical studies, not the initial study itself. These are articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, but if they aren't a secondary review, they should not be used at all. Imzadi 1979→18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I did add those sources back at a time when I didn't know any better, but sometimes you have to use what you can find. There is going to come a day when you will not benefit from my efforts because I'll be too skeptical of anything.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
One more thing: some of the NewsBank articles don't have a page number. I don't think you really need those, though. There's got to be some way to get to the newspaper archives if you know the date. And just as I won't likely be going to a newspaper's microfilm when that's all i can do, I won't do it if i have found the article already.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Skeptical is good! One of the key reasons we prefer most books or newspaper, magazine and journal articles as sources is that their publishers have a reputation for exercising what is called "editorial oversight". Journalists have to have sources to back their articles, even if they don't explicitly disclose them. Editors at publishing houses do more than just copy editing non-fiction works, they have fact-checking and verification done. If they don't, their reputations suffer. If a book contains falsehoods, the publishing house may have to recall them and offer refunds even. (We wouldn't just use any supermarket tabloid to back celebrity gossip as fact; we might use them though to back that the tabloids were gossiping about the celebrity though.)
However, self-published websites don't have similar oversight and constraints. There are even self-published books (see vanity press) that have the same concerns: namely that no one other than the author is vouching for the validity of the content of the source. That isn't to say that some of these websites are wrong or unreliable, they're just not meeting the requirements for editorial oversight required to meet Wikipedia's definition as a Reliable Source. We should be skeptical about the sources these sites and books use unless or until they've demonstrated the same reputation. As an example, look through some of Michigan's FAs on highways and you'll see a book writing by Dr. LeRoy Barnett called A Drive Down Memory Lane: The Named State and Federal Highways of Michigan. The book is published by the Priscilla Press, which I suspect is a vanity publisher. However, Dr. Barnett is the former Chief Archivist of the State of Michigan and frequently published contributor to Michigan History magazine. The book has also been distributed by the Wayne State University Press. He is considered an expert in the field of Michigan history, so even if the book is technically self-published, it meets the requirements of policy. If Chris Bessert, webmaster behind the Michigan Highways website, started submitting articles on highways that were published by magazines, or if he was quoted by more newspapers as a source, his reputation as a "highway historian" could be better established and any of our articles could start directly using his website as a source. So be skeptical of SPSs out there unless you can establish that they really are reliable enough to be considered a Reliable Source. Imzadi 1979→19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
As for articles out of NewsBank, you probably should link the URL as there could be slight differences between the archived copy unless it's a direct scan from the original printing. (I assume that if a correction or retraction were ever necessary, they'd change the copy in the database for instance.) As for looking up stuff, I've had decent success in e-mailing libraries in the hometowns of newspapers with the citation information I had. Sometimes they've even sent me a scanned copy of the article off microfilm via e-mail in reply. You might think that I'm being a little hard on you about this, but I've found that if you start an article out with good citation practices early, it makes it easier later if you or someone else decides to take the article through WP:GAN, WP:HWY/ACR or WP:FAC. Yesterday I went to the Longyear Reasearch Library at the Marquette Regional History Center to look at some maps from the 1850s to use in U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan). That library, being a part of a private museum, charges admission. It's a lot nicer to have the full citation to that map from 1855 than need to go back again later to find the cartography information when asked for it while the article is nominated at FAC. Something that took 30 seconds to write down yesterday could save me a drive and admission tomorrow. Imzadi 1979→19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've used NewsBank too many times to go back and link. Since I'm one of the few fortunate ones, I was told it was pointless. As for this SPS, somewhere I got the idea that these were official pages for the projects concerned and that he was an expert. But if I start being skeptical, I will find information online that I feel needs to be here because I was looking for it and it wasn't here. And Wikipedia won't benefit if I'm scared to do anything. I do know about vanity presses. My grandfather used one. He ran out of books but his needed updating. I had the time and the education. But I always told people not to consider the book reliable, but look at the sources if they're shown. I made a lot of mistakes, though I corrected many of my grandfather's previous mistakes. But not all. And I used his reference formatting, which wasn't all that helpful.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I get that now. But finding something to replace it won't be easy and I've had no luck so far. Looking back at the history, I used it before it was last updated so some of what's there doesn't reflect what is in Wikipedia. I was just trying to find sources for what others had said.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·21:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If you click over to the articles for LA 3 and LA 33, you will see that these routes are split in half. It's pretty weird, considering you have segments of highways that were never meant to be. LA 3 was fine, with it following the Monroe-Baton Rouge highway, but LA 33 was originally meant to be constructed, but the middle segment along the Lake Pontchartrain was cancelled. LA 49 is shown in some maps as connecting, in some as missing, and in the final 1955 maps (the year of the renumbering) as the south segment ending about a mile south of the Old River, and the north segment beginning in a small community. Is it normal to just split the segments, like done in LA 3, or talk about the route as a collective whole? Mcdonaat00:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Treat it like any other segmented highway is what I'd say. SR 3 looks fine, but you need to source the blockquote you have. (BTW, blockquotes don't normally get wrapped in quotation marks.) Direct quotations like that need citations. Also, you really should be trying to get junction lists built for these articles sooner or later... USRD is almost back to even in terms of stub reduction this year. (No, we don't have a drive, but it's still a nice idea to reduce the count each year somewhat.) Imzadi 1979→01:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll remove the quotation marks, and the source can be done quite easily. I'm planning on adding photos for every highway, once the actual articles are finished. I'm getting these 98 perfect before I do the next year's routes (LA 99, 99 1/2, and 100-128). I even have photos of the old ferries that some routes use, and I'm planning on the routes being even better than the newer highways. Mcdonaat03:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The unique part, though, is that the routes in 1955 used roads that don't even exist anymore. What would be the best way to get a junction list? I've been using Google Maps and the directions tool on there, but I can't use it to cross a body of water on a bridge that doesn't exist. Mcdonaat03:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't you have a 1955 map that has either a scale or stated distances between interchanges? Decimal place precision is nice and all, but you can be using maps or other documents from the era. Imzadi 1979→03:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem... Some of the routes were deleted prior to 1955, and the 1955 maps are the earliest maps that have the distances. Mcdonaat03:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
1955 does, but before that, no scale is done. It gets tricky, especially when you're doing a highway like LA 99 1/2, deleted in 1948. Mcdonaat03:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Then again, you could create the table and wait to add the missing numbers until you find or gain access to the right maps or log documents... An old Rand McNally atlas might have the scale information you need to milepost things. I had to leave blanks on some articles until we identified the sources I now use to generate them. The point is that you're missing the section when you still have enough resources to identify what USHs and SRs intersected each other where at that time, even if you don't have the ability at this moment to add the milepost numbers. So build the table, slap {{mileposts}} above it and move on for the moment. When you get a map or a log file you can use to fill in the rest of the blanks, do so.
BTW. you want to update your signature... the link to your talk page doesn't work because you didn't provide any text for it. [[User talk:Mcdonaat|<font color="#F7D117"></font>]] is the code, and there isn't anything there to display. Imzadi 1979→15:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Attached KML/Whitefish National Forest Bay Scenic Byway listed at Redirects for discussion
I noticed your post on the Village Pump thread I started. You posted a reply, I asked for clarification, and you didn't post again. I just wasn't sure if you were following it or just moved on, but I'm still welcoming input if you have any further comments. Thanks! Jesse V. (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you're back at work. I talked to the man at the North Carolina Department of Transportation and he doesn't seem to think there is anything that will help us. But I emailed him a list of the facts that need verifying and hopefully he can find the people who can. There are other facts which I believe will be covered by newspaper articles, but I need to get back to that library where I can look at those (that'll be sometime next week). I didn't get around to it yesterday, except for the one I cited today. To save time, I copied and pasted. I was very busy.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've been planning a trip to the library at Michigan Tech. U. myself for research since they have vertical files each dedicated to specific state highways here in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, so I know about trying to find the time to get to the library. Imzadi 1979→18:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No reply yet. I'm going to visit the man next week just before I go to that library. There is also a state university which will hopefully be able to give me something better. One item of encouraging news was links to 4-digit project numbers in references. If I can find out how to do that it will help a lot, because the article already includes one project number in the unsourced information. Why this man couldn't find the projects that way I don't know.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Heads up, I-57's page has a Lincoln Highway symbol in the junction list for an exit, showing that the route was the historic Lincoln Highway. Any idea on how to trigger the Old Spanish Trail or Jefferson Highway for LA? 'Mcdonaat → 07:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You'd have to add it as a type and route code. To pull up the various Great Lakes Circle Tours, we added them so they'd appear for MN, WI, IL, IN, OH, PA, NY and MI using: |Tour=LMCT for the Lake Michigan Circle Tour.
As for auto trails, my only concern is that the Lincoln Highway is still signed as a scenic byway or historic road in places. Anyway, it's type code is just "Lincoln", meaning they used {{Jct|state=IL|US|30|Lincoln|name2=21100 South}} for that. Imzadi 1979→15:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Great work!
In 2008 I awarded you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for "the huge amount of work that went into propelling the Michigan highway project into uncharted levels of quality". Well, ever since then you've continued to do the same, and on the occasion of MISH hitting the 2.000 mark, it feels appropriate to give you another one. Kudos and keep it up! —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]20:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't archive so fast. I thought I was posting here often enough,. I stopped by the office of the man I talked to last week. He said he passed the information along to the person he thought could help me, but he did wonder why I seemed to expect him to drop everything and spend time on this. I explained the idea was people would be able to find all this information and know it was right, though I never used the word Wikipedia. I was afraid he might think that made it less important. Anyway, that's our major obstacle. I had seen links to the NCDOT web site used as sources, but I don't know how one finds information there. He didn't succeed in finding anything while I was there. But I'm back at the library and working on another set of newspaper articles where I'm sure information can be found. And a week from Thursday it is my plan to go to a state university because parking is free that week.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is I found not only part of what I was looking for, but came up with new ideas to find some of what I tried to look for last week but couldn't find. The bad news is even what I thought I could find this week isn't all there, and there is still stuff missing. Also, there's a contradiction with one of the interstate sections in Greensboro, and I have a feeling that section is no longer marked "Future" since it is connected with the other section now. I have yet to find anything that says it was 3.5 miles.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I got an email from the man I visited yesterday. He doesn't understand what documents I want and since I'm afraid to tell him we're trying to get these for Wikipedia, he can't help me. He did say that the person who requires this information (that would be you) could contact him. I could give you his email address, since I doubt you want to call him. There is one last chance at that state university, but even they might not be able to help me.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've been watching this whole thing (since I watch this talk page) build slowly, and I can say with confidence that I have no idea what you're looking for. –Fredddie™14:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, then why not just settle for the "unreliable" source and let it go at that? I didn't find one of the facts that source is supposed to confirm. But I found someone who may be able to help.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And by the way
Hello, Imzadi1979. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
We should never settle for unreliable sources. Ever. I've been to the Iowa DOT library a few times and have learned they're only as helpful as the information you give them. But still, my point earlier stands; I don't know what you're looking for so I can't help point you in the right direction. –Fredddie™14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've approached people at MDOT and other institutions in various ways. There are those that already know of my work on Wikipedia (you kinda have to tell them why you want a photo and why you need a specific copyright release/license for it). For them, I specify that what I'm looking to find is related to X article. There are other people who don't know it's Wikipedia-related, and I just leave it ambiguous as a "I'm looking for information for a project I'm doing or a paper I'm writing." I've e-mailed librarians to locate page numbers for newspaper articles when I've had the article, but not the complete citation; in those cases, I just say that "I need the information to complete my citation."
I had to fill out a terms of use form at the county historical society library when I went looking for an old map of the city of Marquette for the U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) article. On that form, I did specify there that it is Wikipedia-related research. I had a nice conversation with the librarian about early Marquette history too. Any time that we can demonstrate a commitment to our research and that we attempt to find the best possible sources, we should, especially to the GLAM institutions (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums). Imzadi 1979→19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I did find a helpful newspaper article about a major project near where I live; an article like this is what we need on I-73 but there just hasn't been one. I don't recall whether you've had any involvement in the coverage of this project in Wikipedia. But it pointed out an error in all the news coverage. I always suspected this might be an error because there was no interstate highway system at the time, and I had meant to ask the NCDOT man about it, though it wasn't his division. I also meant to ask in the county's history room but wouldn't have known how to do the research. But the article stated the facts. So an error that has been in every single newspaper article is now corrected in Wikipedia, with all the background information on this project that I had been unaware of. And you know this man is reliable: "Walter R. Turner is historian at the North Carolina Transportation Museum and author of Paving Tobacco Road, A Century of Progress by the North Carolina Department of Transportation."— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What? Look, this conversation, and my involvement in it, has probably run its course. All I wanted was to improve the quality of the citations in the I-73 article, an article I only care about because it's supposed to be extended into Michigan someday. That's it. The Carolinas hold no fascination for me as I've never been there. As Fredddie said above, we should never, ever settle for non-reliable sources (as defined by our policies), and we should always strive to use the highest quality sources possible. You might not have any designs of taking this article to GAN or FAC, but someone else might. Imzadi 1979→17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize at first that you weren't in North Carolina. So I guess having those DOT people ask you what you think would be reliable sources is pointless, then. The man kept trying to push phone numbers on me and I didn't want to spend the money. Now I know you surely wouldn't. Someone once told me a better place to discuss improvments to the article was the article's actual talk page, so if it's okay with you, I'll move everything both of us said there so the process will be clear to everyone involved.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, many of us list our home states/areas on our user pages (mine has Grand Rapids, Michigan, as my place of residence) and almost all of my GAs, and all of my A-Class and FAs, are on Michigan highways. Imzadi 1979→21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)
I just re-ordered the categories again, without realizing you had reverted my previous edit. I do not mean to engage in edit waring, I just viewed the article from The Signpost and re-organized the categories without remembering I had already done so previously. What is wrong with putting the categories in alphabetical order? --Another Believer(Talk)13:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no policy or guideline that requires them to be in alphabetical order.
They were intentionally put in that order, as are all Michigan highway articles, to place the type of road up front in the list of categories.
The US 41 category was listed ahead of the M-28 one because in writing highway concurrencies between a US Highway and a state trunkline, it would be ordered "US 41/M-28" because US Highways have priority over state highways, regardless of numerical or alphabetical order. (With concurrencies of the same type, they're put in numerical order, usually, so I-96/I-275 or US 10/US 31, but I-96/I-69 and US 127/US 10.)
The "Transportation in X" categories are last in state highway articles.
Just a random question... Louisiana's older routes (slowly progressing, with junction lists and even a map or two) sometimes ended at the state line with Mississippi, Arkansas, or Texas. I know Arkansas' shields are uploaded to Commons, and some for Texas. Mississippi's release of the shield designs is forthcoming, so is there any way possible to allow junction templates to show the older shields? Looks weird with SR 91's junction list showing a meeting with a modern MUTCD-spec shield. 'Mcdonaat → 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I hear you, but it's a case that we first need the older marker designs uploaded so that we can add the appropriate type codes for them. It's the same situation in getting the old LA markers in place. Of course for a short term, you can always upload the few markers needed and manually add the [graphic] + [link] construction until {{jct}} gets set up. Imzadi 1979→23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
For the files I was looking at, we already have the legacy Arkansas shields, as well as legacy Texas shields. A quick look at AR 2 and TX 1 will show the legacy shields. What is the graphic plus link setup like? 'Mcdonaat → 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
To do it manually (which must be done sometimes, even when the templates are set up) uses something like: [[File:M-28.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] [[M-28 (Michigan highway)|M-28]] or [[File:M-28.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] [[M-28 (Michigan highway)|M-28]] –[[Marquette, Michigan|Marquette]]. It's important to remember to set the |alt=|link= part of the graphic for consistency with the others. Ever notice that you can't click on the small marker graphics? That's intentional to comply with WP:ALT and would need to be added when doing by hand. Imzadi 1979→23:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
KML Files
Due to little to no help from sources and or other users on North Dakota Highways, I'm going to try adding KML files. I've added five already, but I'm wondering if adding a KML file does anything to the article's class. That is, would it raise it from Stub to Start class?
--Mauer(talk to me)—Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Stub-Class, for USRD, is any article with 0 or 1 of the Big 3 (RD, Hist, JL), and Start-Class articles have 2 of the Big Three. A KML though is rapidly being required for promotion to GA-Class, and it is required for A-Class. Imzadi 1979→07:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help me with a small issue I've run into. I'm trying to add a KML file to Interstate 235 (Oklahoma), but when I created the template I forgot to run it through the text editor first, so I accidentally created the template with Interstate 240 (Oklahoma)'s KML file (the previous one I copy/pasted). After realizing my mistake and correcting it, I'm trying to add the KML to the actual article. Bing's KML comes out correctly, but Google's shows the route map for Interstate 240. This is getting very annoying and I know no way to fix it. Do you? --Mauer (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Any changes to the KML file itself will eventually update with Google and Bing. They cache a copy of the file the first time someone clicks that link to load it into their service. After a couple days, they'll re-cache the file though. You must have noticed the error by clicking the Google link, which loaded the original (and incorrect) version of the KML. There's nothing I know that can be done to accelerate the process. Imzadi 1979→08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried clicking the Google link again and it's already re-cached it to the I-235 route map. I apologize if I'm bothering you too much. You're probably busy. --Mauer (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's updating faster than before, which would be a Good Thing™.
Something else to remember when adding KMLs is that the banner needs to be refreshed/updated. It will automatically detect the presence or absence of the KML file, but unless someone does an edit to the talk page, it won't remove the talk page from the "needs KML" category. If the banner has |needs-kml=yes, you can simply remove the whole parameter (or change it to |needs-kml=no) to force the update. If the banner doesn't have the parameter set, you can do a WP:Null edit. Imzadi 1979→08:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
M-130
Hi! Just a friendly note to inform you that your recent edit to the infobox on M-130 apparently broke it. Thought you would want to know. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Imzadi1979, I noticed that you deleted an additional source for the sister cities section because one source is enough. You're absolutely right. I added the second one because I anticipated having to correct that section in the future. I have had to delete inaccurate extra sister cities in that section in the past; in fact, one of them was the same city. Last time, it turned out that it was a sockpuppet (Webster6) who added the untrue information. This time it is Irvi Hyka, who is currently temporarily blocked. I don't know whether they are the same person or not. Anyway, I guess I'm writing this to give you a heads' up. RNavigator (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You recently participated in an informal discussion here on reforming the recent deaths section of ITN. The old discussion has been closed, and a more formal proposal has been made as an RfC. Please feel free to add your vote and comment to the new section, and, if you support, please indicate whether you prefer bare links or one-word blurbs. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Norman J. Levy and DYK
Hi-I started the Norman J. Levy article. I have started articles about several Wisconsin territorial and state legislators. Okay-thank you for expanding the article; however, I have a modest request. Please do not involved myself with the DYK or give myself DYK credit for the article. There has been too much Wikidrama involving DYK that I can do without. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
MUTCD colors
Hello. I know they MUTCD lists colors by their Pantone name/number, which is not very useful when using Illustrator. Is there anyplace with a translation to either RGB or CMYK values for standard MUTCD colors? → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ05:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I will find the MUTCD Panton numbers, convert them to RGB, CMYK and Hex, and create a chart for the Shields Task Force resources. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, like that. But I also want to include CMYK approximations. I need to check them by actually making swatches in Illustrator, because conversions are not exact. I trust my eyes before I trust a mechanical conversion. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ07:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
At one time, I had Pantone swatches as a palette pop up in Illustrator, but don't ask me how I did it so I could replicate it. Imzadi 1979→07:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
December 12 - save the date. I'm about to port the I-49 page over to my sandbox and construct a Missouri exit list. MoDOT is working on sending me an exit list, with mileage information, for I-49, which will be designated December 12 at noon. They are also sending over department photos for us to freely use, which should beef up the page considerably. I'm also attempting to get the I-49 exit list for Louisiana north of I-220, but that seems to have hit a road block. Hopefully, after a few days, I should have enough information to be able to split I-49 into a Louisiana page and a Missouri page. Any tips before I proceed?
P.S. - I have a milepoint list for I-49 in Louisiana, from I-10 to I-20. Working on adding that information into the I-49 main page before Tuesday. 'Mcdonaat → 04:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sign for Marquette County road 460? (pref. 1970s style)
I don't know what you're asking for? A photo from the 1970s? I wouldn't have such a thing. If you wanted the graphic, the signs haven't changed in style since the 1940s when the current FHWA typefaces were developed and implemented. I haven't created marker graphics for all of the various primary CRs yet because I've only made the ones needed for existing articles. Imzadi 1979→02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Fused junction list
I saw where you had fused the two junction lists together... never thought of that! If you click over to LA 92's page, you'll see something unique - LA 92 forked into two split routes. The same was done with LA 57, but the forked segment was given a different number. Any tips? 'Mcdonaat → 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
I understand that you want the pretty pic to appear next fall on the anniversary. I hope (for you) that TFA will still be in place then, I observe tendencies (1, 2) to do without it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I-680
I just got an alert about an undid revision(i am the 99.195.???, it is just that I didn't sign in), even though it was a while back.....but anyways, there is a toll road at the end, and the signs say last free exit at that road, so why is it not good to place that on freeways, and is there any other phrasing I can use in regards to the tollway at the terminus. Thanks, Brycecordry (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. How do you make your user page and your talk page banners....I haven't done one thing except copy another user's banner about replies (my message, reply on mine; your message, reply on yours)
Which I-680 are you talking about? Your recent contributions do not show that you've edited any of them, and I'm not going to look through all four articles to see what you're talking about. Imzadi 1979→02:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I mean I-680 in Ohio, with it's southern end at I-80 at the Ohio Turnpike. the last free exit is exit 14. I am the 99.195.160.55 IP, it is just that I didn't sign in for that edit (i was out of town) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycecordry (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
user and talk page
Are there any good resources on how to create a good user page? I do not have one, but would like to create one. Do you also have any good ideas to make my talk page look like yours, but with a missouri route 5 shield on it, since I live near route 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycecordry (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
...but as I see it, you're harassing my edits. There's a main page redesign afoot, and the "standards" you're looking to enforce are *not* standards or requirements. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless and until the Main Page is redesigned based on a consensus decision, we operate under the current model. Please stop your passive-aggressive attempts at slipping changes through without discussion by formatting blurbs that don't fit the current model in the hopes they'll be copied over to the MP. Imzadi 1979→04:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a discussion page that reached a decision to change the Main Page. Not a "a change would be good" type decision, but an actual consensus that determined a change to make. Unless and until there is a discussion and a decision, we should not be introducing changes by stealth. I don't disagree that there are opportunities with the image sizes, but no one's started a decision to make that change yet. Also, you might want to see WP:BRD about the reversions of bold changes and what the appropriate next step should be.
you presume too high a bar for trivial changes. 100px is ludicrous. David Levy has been through all the upcoming tfa setting them to 133px as a compromise. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
Okay... I was sure this was vandalism, but the history doesn't indicate it is. Since it appears you wrote the article, I'll ask you, is there any chance "M-294 is approximately two metres (0.0020 km) east of Interstate 194 (I-194) and connects M-96 with I-94 southeast of Battle Creek." is correct? A state highway two meters from an interstate, less distance than the width of a lane? Courcelles22:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Good, good... I figured it was a typo, however, unlike a typical typo, what the correction was wasn't obvious. Thanks. Courcelles22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I just attempted to recreate the article for Interstate 29 in North Dakota. If you have any spare time, could you take a look at it and determine whether or not it has enough content to remain its own article? If not, please tell me what else the article needs and I will try to add it. Thanks in advance. --Mauer (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
With these "state-detail articles" as we call them, we've tended to merge them back into the parent article unless they have at least a decent start on a route description and a history section. If the article is just the exit list and a lead/infobox, that hasn't been good. You've got the basic structure started, so you're pretty much on your way.
There are some basic things that I would change, like converting the exit list to use {{jctint}} instead of raw table formatting (which keeps the table current with MOS:RJL, etc), and I would add the state line continuations into the table. (That way you'd have MP 0.00 and MP 217.54 represented to show the overall length of the highway....) I would also suggest that you break the RD into separate paragraphs so that it isn't one big block of text. Overall, it's a C-class article and the stub template should be removed at the bottom. Imzadi 1979→22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to dig up some township maps so the location column isn't mostly blank. So far, NDDOT maps are not helping. –Fredddie™22:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems like Wikipedia changed how it operates, at least on my browsers (Chrome, Firefox, IE9). No box is shown below the editing space where the tildas for signatures and #REFLIST used to be... just a plain Save Page box. Any ideas on what is going on? It makes editing much more difficult. 'Mcdonaat → 03:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you know how to link abbreviated in line citations? Can you make any additional improvements to this article in the way of citations? Thanks.--Doug Coldwelltalk12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Take a look. I linked the shortened references to the full citations. The simplest method that I've found is to add |ref= with a name to the full citations, and then link to that name in the footnote. Also, you can nest footnotes inside notes using {{#tag:ref|text of note|name=name of note|group=upper-alpha}}; the text of the note can contain <ref></ref> tags, which is something that I did in articles like U.S. Route 131. I hope that this helps. Imzadi 1979→15:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Leave it to the roadmeister to find an equitable road for all on the I-96 sniper. Your editing skills and diplomacy never cease to amaze me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Imzadi1979. Just getting back to you after the comment you left me in June. Time flies, sorry for being so late, but at least I didn't forget ;-). Anyhow. I have fixed the WMA to show a globe in articles such as U.S. Route 161. --Dschwen01:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, do you remember where we had the initial discussion, that led to the creation of Attached KML? I cannot remember if it was on the project highway pages or the geo project pages. There were quite a few convincing arguments against pulling data directly from OSM. I'm trying to remember those. Do you know about WIWOSM? It was announced just a few days after Attached KML was ready. --Dschwen21:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Imzadi! Have you ever considered becoming an admin? I see you are much useful in the content area besides having sound judgement skills which furthers your understanding of the rules. Then why not help the community with the mop tools as well? --SMSTalk12:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I've thought about it, and the mop would be useful from time to time working on templates that are protected, clearing some deletion requests and the like. I just haven't been in too big of a hurry to pursue it though. Imzadi 1979→12:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear that, let me know when you have a weeks time free, I mean when you can find time to answer to queries everyday for a week. I will be glad to write you a nomination. --SMSTalk13:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator?
Created on November 11, 1926, which gives it an appropriate anniversary date to run on Veterans Day instead of a WW I-related topic. Considering that I'll be working third shift (11 p.m. – 7 a.m. EST) here in the US on the 22nd and then making a 9-hour drive northward after work to spend Christmas with my family, I would reluctantly prefer not to have an article of mine appear as a TFA over my holiday period. I wouldn't mind it another time, but since I'm probably the only one with access to all of the sources used, if there are questions, I would be unavailable while driving and sleeping post-drive. Imzadi 1979→02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not that fussed about the creation date, as I doubt we'll be running short of First World War articles over the next few years, but I really do wish you'd mentioned your unavailability first time; it was a fair bet that I'd be replacing like-for-like and that therefore one of your other articles would be picked. Now the time I spent finding an article in decent shape, choosing an image, writing a balanced blurb of 1,200 or so characters, protecting the article, adding the maindate to article history, changing the link in the next day's article is wasted, if you have your way. I'm going to bed now; I'll see whether I can find the time to re-reschedule tomorrow. BencherliteTalk02:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the URLs I posted![1] I always thought that some of my URLs were too long and that is why they were an ugly mess and would not post correctly. I also just found Template:Citation#URL. So, to confim, my very long term URL posting problem wasn't because of the URL lengths, it was because the citation template parameters contain certain characters. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. - My URLs displaying and linking incorrectly has been a long term problem and it's nice to know there is a fix. How do you go about fixing the URLs? Does twinkle have an option or do you just search out the bad characters and replace them with the percent-encoded character? Can a bot do this fix? In the alternative, would it help if there were a notification bot that notified users that a URL they posted contained certain characters that will display and link incorrectly? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. There's no automated tool, I just manually looked through the URLs looking for one of those characters that would break it (", ', <, >, [, ], |. } ). That's all I do whenever the URL starts appearing when using a citation template. Imzadi 1979→18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you assessed and made some changes to a couple of Bangladeshi highway articles I created. Just wondering if you had any feedback/ideas on how they could be improved and expanded. Hack (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Without going into full detail on each, a good article on a highway should typically have at least three sections:
Route description, or another name, where the roadway is described from one end to the other. The reader would have a general idea of the route of the road, the sites and landscapes along it, what cities or other landmarks it encounters.
A History of the roadway's development. This section would include such events as construction, major reconstructions or realignments, and possibly the origins of the name or numerical designation.
If there are confirmed plans for future changes, a Future section would be appropriate as well.
A junction list, formatted along the lines of MOS:RJL as a table.
Other sections as needed. Some of the better articles I've worked on for Michigan's highways have a section related to memorial highway names or historic or otherwise notable bridges along the highway.
Good articles should also have photographs, if possible, a map, a diagram of the highway marker (something like File:M-28.svg for M-28 in the US state of Michigan) and other visual media. If a set of highway marker graphics are, or can be, created for Bangladesh, the infobox can be set to display them above the designation and name automatically.
Basically, my advice to start out is to set up the skeleton of the article, those "Big Three" sections, and then fill in as much appropriate and citable detail as possible. Imzadi 1979→08:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing, in the US, we use a "browser" function at the bottom of the infoboxes on our articles instead of big navboxes listing all of the articles for a state. For example, on the M-28 article listed above, the "Highway system" section of the infobox lists links to Michigan State Trunkline Highway System and the sublists for the Interstates, US Highways, State Trunklines and Heritage Routes. Then under that, there's a link to the previous highway in the numerical list (for M-28 that would be M-27) and the next one (M-29). That is an option for any country as well. Imzadi 1979→08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive replies. I have implemented the browse function on a few of the major highways and it seems to work well. On the route markers, there appears to be no dedicated route marking system however the route numbers appear on all route confirmation signage. According to the road authority's specifications, the route number is shown in white on a "middle Brunswick green" background.[2]. Given these wouldn't be copyrighted, is there a documented process for creating these images? Hack (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)It would indeed work, but we generally create vector graphics instead of png. If I can get that color pdf downloaded, I'll take a look and try to make something. –Fredddie™13:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ibox-US
You have removed every invocation of Template:Ibox-US. Please let me know for what articles you feel this template is appropriate, if any.
The United States is a federation of 50 states, and I feel that the insignia of that federation are quite appropriate for articles and lists about the constituent divisions of that federation. If you do not like the flag and great seal as symbols of those divisions, what would you suggest instead? Yours aye, Buaidh 15:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The Great Seal of the United States is a symbol of the federal government; there is no single, equivalent symbol for the states as a group, except perhaps maybe a map showing the state boundaries. As well, a link to the article on the nation is not appropriate to things like lists of official state dogs, all of which are selected through legislation passed at the state level with no involvement from the Congress. Imzadi 1979→16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the Great Seal of the United States is part of the insignia of the federal/national government headquartered in Washington. Each state has its own seal, or no seal if it so chooses. They have various other insignia as each jurisdiction desires, so to apply an insignia of the federal government to something applicable to the states, in their own areas of sovereignty, is inappropriately implying that the federal government has something to do with that topic. You're free to disagree with me, but you should obtain consensus before widely implementing that iconbox quite prominently at the lead of various articles that have nothing to do with the federal government. Imzadi 1979→21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, each government entity has its own set of insignia. I think you completely miss the point. We are discussing a collection of peer entities that have a common parent, in this case the United States.
So far, all you have to say is that states are not part of the federal government. Granted, but that is irrelevant. I currently work for a state government, and I previously worked for the federal government. States recognize their peers and their common parent. I have no desire to put my stamp upon any article, but I do think that a large body of related lists should have some sort of common identification. If you have any constructive criticisms, I would love to hear them. Your aye, Buaidh 23:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Except that in these cases, what you're adding is purely decorative, and only tangentially related, if not blatantly misleading by implying a federal-government connection to a state-government topic in aggregate. It would be like using the flag of the United Nations at the top of a list of countries national anthems; the UN has 100% nothing to do with the selection of those pieces of music, even if all entities listed in the tables are UN members.
Several of these list articles have maps that are much better lead images than the insignia of a government that isn't involved in the selection of the topic items. Adding the icon box pushed that map out of the lead image position. Imzadi 1979→23:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to delete a userbox template, please nominate it for deletion rather than surreptitiously redirecting it to a slightly revised version. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Userboxes have been migrated out of the Template: namespace over to the User: namespace for as long as I can remember. If there are minor differences between them, I apologize, but it looked like you reverted the redirect, "un-migrating" the template back to Template: space. Imzadi 1979→16:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that caveat now, but why are you so hung up on what essentially is a duplicate? The easiest way to merge duplicates together is to redirect one to the other and call it a day. Honestly, I don't care, but many, many user boxes, controversial or not, have been migrated out of the template space, so this shouldn't be a big deal. Discussion closed because I'm no longer interested. Imzadi 1979→23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you know who I can ask to make cut out missouri route signs, such as the 1948 michigan route signs? I know you dont make them, but do you know who I can ask to do itBrycecordry (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If you give me a template for one-digit, two-digt, and three-digit signs for the primary routes, and one and two-letter supplemental routes, as well as the RoadGeek 2005 Fonts you use, I can make the signs I need myself, just use 0s and Xs on the templates.
check archive 4
Please check Archive four for a message I mistakenly left on that page. It is about the signs. I forgot to sign again...I need to remember! Brycecordry (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Request
Hello Imzadi1979, you may know me -- I wanted to discuss something in personal, perhaps -- if you need help on an article someday, you might like to leave a message on my talk page if possible? Thank you, - CURTAINTOAD!TALK!00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
CURTAINTOAD!TALK! is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Greetings, Imzadi, Thanks for cleaning things up in the article I created. Actually, in most Israeli highway articles, we're in the habit of abbreviating St., Rd. & Blvd. in the junction list. Right now, until the junction names are put in, widening the table, I guess there is plenty of room to spell out Road, Street and Boulevard. As you know, Israeli junction lists do not exactly follow the same guidelines of other countries' lists. You once said that "...article should not contain Hebrew in any instances where an English translation is available". Well, our highway signs rarely have English translations. Rather they have transliterations. מחלף שבעת הכוכבים does not appear on our highway signs as The Seven Stars Interchange, but as Shiv'at HaKochavim Interchange! That's why we prefer to include a column for translations of the junction names. In fact, there are some instances of junctions also having Arabic names which differ from the Hebrew names, especially in the West Bank. If we start including those and translating the transliterations, well, the tables might just get so wide as to create bothersome wrap-arounds! I get dizzy just thinking about it! Which leads me back to the issue of abbreviations. Sometimes space becomes an problem. Later on, if the table becomes too wide to comfortably include photos down the right side, I hope you don't mind if I revert to abbreviations. By the way, you may have noticed that a speedy deletion tag was placed on the page. I hope to rectify that situation in the next few days by adding some stuff as per a discussion I had with the user who placed the tag. One other thing: I once had a discussion with you and Floydian about upgrading the assessment of Highway 20. I haven't forgotten about it. It's on my to-do list! Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Per MOS:RJL: Where names appear in the junction list, type designators such as "Street", "Road", or "Highway" should be spelled out in full, not abbreviated. Use First Street or Maple Road, not First St. or Maple Rd. as not all abbreviations for such are universally used or widely known.Imzadi 1979→20:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
1. According to MOS:ABBR, one can "Make an exception for very common abbreviations" and MOS specifically lists Ave., Blvd, Hwy., Rd. and St. Also, I read somewhere (sorry, can't find it right now) that abbreviations can be used in tables where space may be limited. Which should take precedence, "WikiProject Highways' specific MOS guidelines" or "broader Wikipedia's MOS guidelines"?
2. Can WikiProject Highways allow for country specific style variations (such as the translation column in the junction list) when considering elevating article class on the quality scale.?
This isn't a "WikiProject Highways' specific MOS guidelines", this is part of the MOS itself. If you wish to propose a country-specific deviation in MOS:RJL, I would suggest you propose it on WT:RJL, which is the talk page for that section of the MOS. Imzadi 1979→14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll give this information to a more experienced user to argue the case. In the meantime, I've got a lot of work reorganizing the text of other highway pages to conform to the guidelines regarding the overall article structure. Thanks for the advice. Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Imzadi. Recently, you altered the infobox of Jerusalem Road 21. I created a generic infobox and wrote "Planned Jerusalem Road 21" as the name. You replaced that with standard fomatting by using "|header_type=UC" which changed the color to yellow for roads under constuction. Apart from some clearing and fencing, no actual construction has actually begun. Here in Jerusalem, the next stage may not begin for many years, if ever!. Is there another way to signify "planned" rather thatn "UC"? Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
In the US, we've used that header code for any road that isn't completed, whether it is currently under construction or only planned. Imzadi 1979→05:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Is a divided highway different than a freeway? I thought that multi-lane divided with cross traffic is an expressway. According to Google Maps, The road becomes undivided then the freeway ends. Brycecordry (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
MDOT's map has the southernmost section marked as a two-lane highway. Then there is a section marked as a divided highway between Three Rivers and Schoolcraft. From Schoolcraft north to Manton, it is a freeway before it reverts back to a two-lane undivided highway.
A divided highway has a median separating it into parallel carriageways without access control limiting driveway access and without grade separation to eliminate cross traffic. A freeway has complete access control and full grade separation. An expressway is in between the two extremes. Imzadi 1979→03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So how do I explain that the freeway ends AND it becomes a two lane road with no access control. There are such things as two lane freeway. Brycecordry (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"Northern end of freeway". The "Southern end of divided highway" note at MP 5.448 is paired up with a "Northern end of divided highway / Southern end of freeway" notation at MP 21.128. Imzadi 1979→03:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The divided highway section ends at Schoolcraft when the freeway segment starts. You're overthinking this, and not applying what the map legend says; the legend has "undivided highway", "divided highway" and "freeway as the possible choices. Imzadi 1979→05:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The notations are based on how the MDOT map has it labeled; that map does not use those terms and so the article will not either. We base what information we present in the article on what information, and how it is presented, in the reliable sources. Imzadi 1979→00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, as you see, I am fairly new here (even though my account has been around since 2010, I didn't start using it until 2012). What are reliable sources? If it says undivided highway then why doesn't the article say it? Brycecordry (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is very hard to comprehend, but I saw a reference to Rand McNally road atlases on the article on the Kansas Turnpike. It references US 131 north of Manton as a "Principal Highway", while the 2012 Michigan Map says "Paved Highway - Two or more lanes" Which should I use, or is that what you are talking about? Brycecordry (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what's so hard about it. The MDOT map notes where US 131 is a divided highway (Three Rivers to Schoolcraft), where it is a freeway (Schoolcraft to Manton) and the remainder is neither. So the exit list has the mileposts for the three transition points with the appropriate labels. In either case, I think this discussion has about run its course. Imzadi 1979→04:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank You, you answered my question: the answer is "It is not anything but a two lane road, and doesn't need to be cited" No reply needed. Brycecordry (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Imzadi. I have created a history section in the article as per WP:HWY. Please reassess. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Promotion of the place where people describe where they live by pointing to a spot on their hand award
For all your great work on road articles about my former (and always dearest) state. Still looking for the time when you are caught up enough to start on the two-track county roads up in Luce County! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey! H-58 in Luce County ain't that great, and it's got a Featured Article about it! Seriously though, I doubt WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD would let us keep articles about the two-tracks in the UP. Thanks all the same :) Imzadi 1979→01:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Imzadi, greetings of the new year. I write to you to again inquire whether you'll be open for an RfA this quarter. If yes, would you kindly drop in a note in case you're interested in a nom? Best regards. WifioneMessage17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I know I've said this before, but I think you'd be a good admin. You have a very good understanding of content, and a good understanding of relevant policy (as being a roads editor tends to make you...) I also know that you have other things going on in IRL, so if this would be too much, I understand, but I think that the project would benefit from your service as an admin. --Rschen775420:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There are times that it has its appeal... and others where I'm not so sure I want to bother. Work-related stuff has calmed down, so maybe soon. Imzadi 1979→09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Greatest number of intersections with the same route
Since you decided to remove my post (without even trying to answer me), I will ask you directly:
I know that Wikipedia is not a forum, but I was curious. What road (in the US and, possibly, the world) has the most intersections/junctions/interchanges with the same roadway. I'm sure that it is either a business route (and mainline route) or a route that was bypassed by another route (such as the former routing of U.S. 91 and I-15. Current and former (and possibly even future) routes are admissible.
By the way, what is the updated information on the WikiCup? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, and I don't care. You might want to try using Google] or Bing to see if you can find the answer. There are several FAQ pages online related to misc.transport.road or the AARoads forum. Imzadi 1979→00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the WikiWork metrics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and spread word about these helpful formulas to other WikiProjects. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fixes you applied to the above article.
Having said that, one word on your comment about more references: The vast majority of the detailed info for the RD, as well as the exact info for the mile posts, comes from the personal geodatabase files referenced as Reference 1. Because that data is in the form of massive shapefiles and MS Access database files, and those files are all located at the same site, I don't think that duplicating references makes any sense, and may just confuse instead. In other words - that one reference contains 80-90% of the info used in those areas. I would compare this to using one authoritative book for an article - except that in that case, I would reference different page numbers, which is not possible in the case of this shapefile/database repository.
Is this article fairly rated as a C - when I have seen some Bs and Cs that pale in comparison? No. Do I really care? No. What you see is the result of many hours of careful, detailed research, supported with references allowing a user to follow my trail - I am not here to compete for ratings. Concertmusic (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The entire "Related routes" section is unreferenced except for the lengths in the infoboxes; there are no footnotes in the prose there. The RD is fine as is, and was not the subject of the comment. A B-Class article should have at least one footnote for each paragraph ideally, and you have four that lack them.
I appreciate the other fixes you have done in the meantime. The lack of references on the related routes is a definite oversight, and has been corrected. I have also added the section sub-headers for each related route, and will fix at least one article where a section should be referenced. Thank you for your help! Concertmusic (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You might want to rename those subheadings. I don't know how picky people are about MOS:HEAD these days, but the subject of the article isn't really supposed to be repeated in the headings' names. "Marietta spur" carries all of the same needed information, while "State Route 5 Spur in Marietta" is both longer and repeats part of the article name. I've found that if I've integrated various suggestions like that into my editing practices early in the development of an article, then I can avoid comments about renaming headings later. (M-35 got a comment on heading titles at one point because I used "M-35 in the Huron Mountains" and "M-35 and Henry Ford" as subheadings in the History section.) Imzadi 1979→18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey I noticed you replied to me but indented under Scott. Could you please remove one indent to conform to WP:INDENT? I find it can help make the conversation more clear. Thank you :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Imzadi1979. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Greetings. Thank you for your edits to Lower Blackburn Grade Bridge. I did however change the dates back to the Day-Month-Year format which is preferred WP:DATEFORMAT. Please don't change them back again, it's too trivial to start an edit war over, and we've put years of effort into MOS:DATEUNIFY (standardizing the dates) in this corner of the project! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles on topics from the US should use the US standard format, which is Month DD, YYYY, not DD Month YYYY, unless the article is about a subject connected to the military. Also, bridgehunter.com is a WP:SPS, and so it fails policy, so I have re-tagged it as failing a credibility check. Imzadi 1979→05:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I posted a comment on Alansohn's Talk page. He responded with some comments that showed up on my Talk page. I then went into my Talk page and edited it with comments in response to his comments.
However, when I go to Alansohn's Talk page, I do not see his original comments in response to me and I do not see my follow-up comments in response to him. Why is that?
Is he receiving my follow-up comments so that he can respond to them?
A talk page, like any other page, is self-contained. If he replied to your comments on his talk page with comments on your talk page, they are not connected.
Each user has a watchlist, and so if I make comments on someone's talk page, I keep it on my watchlist so that I can see when he/she replies there. Many editors prefer that a conversation started on one talk page is continued there, rather than issuing replies on other pages. Granted if he replied to your comments on his page, you wouldn't get the orange "You have messages" box, but there is the {{talkback}} template that can be used for that. Imzadi 1979→00:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Imzadi, I drove along M-95 today on my way to mid-Wisconsin. The only railroad crossing is a defunct track in Channing that they use to store unneeded railroad cars (I've only had to stop there once ... where they had problems with their air brakes, and I was stuck for a half hour). Google Maps shows this too—it looks like it was turned into an ATV trail a long time ago. Regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan]02:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Re Wondering55's edits
I don't think that we have ever interacted before, but we seem to have a connection with Wondering55. As an experienced editor, could I ask you to take a look through Wondering55's edits and share your thoughts regarding these edits at WP:ANI. You only saw the Pulaski Skyway edit, but please use your familiarity with highway articles in general and share your opinion on the quality of the sources and the justification for their removal in his whole string of edits. Alansohn (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Admin hat on, that's clear POV pushing and not acceptable. Whether certain aspects are not reliable or not can be discussed, but a wholesale removal of every mention of the source is not okay. --Rschen775408:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Saginaw Military Road
Hey have you ever heard of the "Saginaw Military Road". I found a pamphlet from Genesee County Road Commission that says "The first road in Genesee County was a trail cut from Saginaw to Flint by detachments of the Third United States Infantry in the winter of 1822-1823. It was called the Saginaw Military Road though it was little more than a bridle path." I'm guessing it's now part of the Saginaw Trail but there's no historical maps or anything in the pamphlet. Thoughts? TomCat4680 (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would take an educated guess that you're right; most of the early long-distance roads in the state evolved from Indian trails to military roads to plank roads to state highways between the formation of Michigan Territory in 1805 and 1913–19 with the creation of the state highway system. Imzadi 1979→02:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Pulaski Highway - National Historic Register Source
I replaced the current source for the website page for National Register of Historic Places with the alternate link below in the same website. I did this to make it easier for users to quickly find the cited item on the Historic Places website. You put back in the current source.
I updated website link below to make it easier for users to quickly find the cited item since it is NOT listed under Pulaski Skyway and it will NOT be found on the site if a user does a general search with 05000880.
It took make me several frustrating attempts to figure out how to finally find Pulaski Highway on the National Register Site based on the current source. At one point, I was even considering contacting the Historic Register Site to ask if they had it listed in their database.
Is there any reason why the updated source info below cannot be used?
Pulaski Skyway is a Featured Article. As such, its citations should be in a consistent format. Your change is not consistently formatted with the rest of the article, nor is it consistent with other NRHP articles. Imzadi 1979→04:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I will insert the updated source citation in accordance with the standard format below. Thanks for letting me know.
I was also curious how to be automatically notified when changes are made to an article page that I update or when someone, like yourself, responds to a Talk page that I open up on their site. I had clicked on the "Watch This Page" and thought that would provide me with automatic notices if anything changed on these pages, including any response from you.
That's not standard. The "work" refers to the name of the website, not search instructions. (The parameter takes its name from it's function, to hold the title of a published work, like a book, magazine, etc.) The publisher of that database is the National Park Service. The accessdate should match up in date format with the others in the article, which isn't the ISO-style you used.
As for notifications, the orange banner alerting an editor to new messages only works when he gets messages on his account's talk page. If you clicked on "Watch this page", it will add it to your Watchlist. For that, look at the top of any Wikipedia page for the Watchlist link and click on it. Imzadi 1979→15:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you show me where I should I insert the instructions, "Search for "05000880" in Reference Number entry. Listed as Route 1 Extension. It also includes Pulaski Skyway." in the citation below. Where can I find the standard formats for different types of citation sources? Thanks
There isn't a standard place for that type of search instructions. Some online databases allow links to be used that point directly to specific records. Others do not. When we can't link to a specific record, as is the case with the NRHP database, we just link to the site itself. Yeah, it's not ideal, and the reader will have to perform the search manually, but there isn't really a different way to go about it. Imzadi 1979→15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that a manual search will need to be done. However, if a user then types in "Pulaski Skyway" they will not find what they are looking for. They will then have to finally figure out they need to go back to the Wikipedia page and find the reference number and insert it in the "Reference Number" entry. I am trying to make it quicker and easier for the user to retrieve the information based on my instructions. I will add the instruction, which will appear in the footnote, at the end of the standard citation entry noted above. Thanks for your assistance.Wondering55 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
You're still mis-formatting it. First off, the publisher is the National Park Service, as the "U.S. National Register of Historic Places" is a thing, not a corporation/business/group of people that publishes things. (The NPS might have an "Office of the NHRP", just like in Michigan the "State Historic Preservation Office" is the group that administers and publishes the state equivalent of the NRHP.) Second, I sympathize with wanting to make it easier, but the extraneous notes are written in the wrong tone. They sound like personal instructions instead of academic writing suitable for an encyclopedia, and I've never seen such a thing used in academic citations. The existing citation is fine as is and should be left alone. Imzadi 1979→01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It was an oversight that I did not replace "U.S. National Register of Historic Places" with National Park Service. Proper academic citations usually do not take a user to a general source where the user will have difficulty in figuring out how to find the specific source citation. That is why proper academic sources cite page numbers when the source has multiple pages or a specific link on an Internet page that goes directly to the source.
If I could have taken the user directly to the source location without any instructions, I would have. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Therefore, it is helpful for users to have a brief instruction and explanation about finding the source. I don't think there should be concerns about this. Let me make the proposed change that will make it easier and save time for everybody.
If you disagree, where can I address this issue in a general Wikipedia forum to find out how to handle sources to an Internet site where the user has to try and figure out how to find the specific cited source without any guidance and will be prevented from finding the specific source unless they figure out how to find it in a very specific way. I think we need to think outside the box when sourcing was to documents not on the Internet.Wondering55 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I finally got off my duff and did an article review for you, check the ACR page. I know I only owe about 2 more. Please keep kicking me in the rear. I am trying to make more time for wikipedia and my life is beginning to resemble some sense of normalcy again. Dave (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Removal of Revisions to Pulaski Skyway
I believe that all listed revisions, which I made on 20:58 on March 12, are justified based on the reasons below. I hope that once you review the reasons that you will agree they can be included. I would like to try and work to resolve this between ourselves.
1. Addition of a second citation, ref name="NJDOT1", which is already used multiple times in the article, for number of spans (118) for Pulaski Skyway
It is better to have more than 1 citation for an item (number of spans) that has been questioned and reported differently in the past. The current citation is a presentation by an outside engineering company, who was working with NJDOT, to a Historic Sites Council Meeting in 2010 about what was being considered for rehabilitation of the Pulaski Skyway.
The scope of work may or may not have been changed between then and 2013. The NJDOT Jan. 2013 press release, which was referenced by ref name="NJDOT1", clearly states the number of spans is 118. So, now you have left in a 59 page technical slide presentation from 2010, which uninitiated users have to figure out where to find the reference to 118 spans. You reverted a one page 2013 NJDOT press release, which is more authoritative than the current citation since they own the Pulaski Skyway and maintain it, that readily lets users know there are 118 spans.
My recommendation is to keep in both citations, both of which I found on my own for citing the number of spans:
a) ref name="NJDOT1" - The most recent official NJ DOT authoritative citation.
b) Current Parsons presentation citation - Engineering back-up to the NJ DOT authoritative citation. It also has other useful engineering information for readers about the rehabilitation work.
2. Changing the note for the alternate NRHP citation.
As you must be aware since I notified you about this issue, the NRHP project team, who has oversight over the way NRHP citations are presented, approved my note below for inclusion with the alternate format of the NRHP citation, which I developed.
Search for Reference Number "05000880". Pulaski Skyway is a contributing property to the listed “Route 1 Extension”.
Yet, you decided not to allow it. That is not acceptable. It should be changed back, unless you want to reopen this issue with the NRHP project team
3. Typo error
It currently states:
The Skyway way built as part of the Route 1 Extension
I corrected it and then you deleted the bold highlighted correction:
The Skyway was built as part of the Route 1 Extension
4. Clarification of Statement
Current article states:
"The Skyway was built as part of the Route 1 Extension and sources differ on inclusion of that project in the Pulaski Skyway."
I modified it and then you deleted the bold highlighted section that more accurately reflects what has happened:
"The Skyway was built as part of the Route 1 Extension and sources differ on the start and end points for inclusion of the Pulaski Skyway in that project."
In fact, all of the supporting statements that follow reflect the differences that others report on start and end points of the Pulaski Skyway and therefore the actual length of the Pulaski Skyway. There is no cited statement that raised any question about whether the Route 1 Extension project was included in the Pulaski Skyway.
4. Clarification of Statement
Current article states:
"The turnpike had to be built low enough to provide enough clearance underneath the skyway, but high enough to clear the nearby Passaic River."
I modified it and then you deleted the bold highlighted section that more accurately reflects what has happened:
"The turnpike had to be built low enough to provide enough clearance underneath the skyway, but high enough to provide enough clearance over the nearby Passaic River."
There was never a question at the time the NJ turnpike was built about whether the NJ Turnpike would "clear" the Passaic River. Technically, the NJ Turnpike could "clear" the Passaic River if it was only 10 feet above the river at high tide. The sole question at that time was if the NJ turnpike clearance would be high enough for its bridge, which would be built after passing the skyway, above the Passaic River to allow for river traffic. Obviously, this river clearance would be lower if the turnpike went under the Pulaski Skyway instead of over it. They decided to go under the skyway to save money and live with the lower clearance, which required a compromise on whether the turnpike bridge was high enough, over the Passaic River.
The current article statement does NOT reflect the more accurate common sense issues that were raised at the time the NJ Turnpike was built.
5. Clarification of Statement
Current article states:
"As part of a 2005 seismic retrofit project, the Turnpike Authority lowered its bridge to increase vertical clearance"
I modified it and then you deleted the bold highlighted section that more accurately reflects what has happened:
"As part of a 2005 seismic retrofit project, the Turnpike Authority lowered its roadway to increase vertical clearance underneath the skyway"
There is NO turnpike bridge underneath the Pulaski Skyway. The turnpike lowered its "roadway" underneath the Pulaski Skyway. It was done to increase the vertical clearance "underneath the skyway" bridge that spans over the turnpike.Wondering55 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I won't go into great detail, and I'll ask that if you post on my talk page in the future that you keep your postings much more concise. Large walls of text turn off other editors.
Two citations are rarely needed for non-contentious information. One footnote is really all that is normally needed. (Roads articles are an exception when they cite the map from before and after a routing change in their history section, but this is a bridge article first and foremost.) If the page number is missing from the citation, it should be added.
The NRHP WikiProject does not own that wording, nor did they specifically "approve" it as I read the discussion. The revised wording that is there now is better. Citations omit verbs normally, so it is quite odd for a citation to tell a reader to search for a specific term when just listing the reference number itself is sufficient. Again, Featured Articles are held to a higher standard than most in terms of verbiage and formatting.
Go ahead and reinsert that change; using the rollback feature undoes all recent changes by an editor, beneficial or not.
Your version comes across as too wordy. FAs have "prose [that] is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", and your addition doesn't seem to meet that criterion, in my opinion.
If you have additional comments to make, please indent them under my replies. Modifying your posting, once someone replies to it, especially when it alters the numbering of your various points, makes my reply less meaningful. Imzadi 1979→04:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I was modifying my original post since I quickly realized I had left out the item below and did not think you would respond so quickly. While I was inserting the one item below, you responded to my original post.
1. Deletion of NRHP Citation for Statement in Item 3 above
The statement has the citation below for the Route 1 Extension. However, the main text in the Wikipedia article provides no citation that the Route 1 Extension is an NRHP registered site based on its inclusion of the Pulaski Skyway. The reverted NRHP citation should be added since it serves a different purpose than the citation below.
Number of spans is a contentious issue since it has been reported as 108, then 118, then 108, and then 118 in this article. Two citations are needed.
Regarding the wording of the note for Item 2, the key issue is that the NRHP project team inserted my alternate NRHP citation, which you were against, with my note into the Pulaski Skyway article. I notified you about this NRHP Talk page discussion about this specific citation and note. You had every right to make your case about this citation and note on that Talk page. You chose not to and need to accept what was allowed by the NRHP project team, which is clearly aware of what can be put in a featured article, or reopen the discussions on their Talk page. The concise note, which tells users to search by the stated reference number, needs to be changed back. If users search by "Pulaski Skyway" or "Route 1 Extension" they will not find the NRHP source.
Both current statements from Item 4 are confusing, inaccurate, and not supported by the article statements that follow. Based on my previous reasons, let's change the first one to more succinctly state:
"The Skyway was built as part of the Route 1 Extension and sources differ on the start and end points for the Pulaski Skyway."
Let's change the second statement to more accurately reflect:
"The turnpike had to be built low enough to provide enough clearance underneath the skyway, but high enough to provide sufficient clearance above river traffic in the nearby Passaic River."Wondering55 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Replying to your two new points by number (and if you can't respect my request for concise postings, please stop posting here in the future.):
The number of spans is just not a contentious issue. It looks like honest errors in sources, or differing definitions of the extent of the Skyway. Honestly, given the one-digit difference in number, it could be a typo that's been repeated in various sources. One authoritative source is sufficient to establish a single number, period. If it's really contentious, in your opinion, then open a discussion on the article's talk page about "The number of spans varies; source A says 108[1] while source B says 118.>[2]" Tacking two citations for a single number at the end of the sentence is overkill.
First off, the way I read things is not that they endorsed a specific wording, which as I said, is not appropriate for the format of a citation. Djflem was the one that changed the wording Doncram added, and I agree with Djflem's revised wording. WikiProject NRHP does not "own" that wording, they did not approve it, I did not accede to any decision of theirs through silence or otherwise, and there's no requirement that we have to stick to that exact wording. In short, the "Search for" wording is not appropriate in tone for a citation, as we don't say "Search for ISBN 1234...9 at your local library for this book" in a citation. The reason I pointed you there is that that project maintains the template that was used for the NRHP citation, not to get them to endorse a poorly worded citation. As for the rest, I'm beyond caring at this point, but please don't screw up a FA in such a fashion that it loses its FA status. The article was just reviewed recently to ensure it was still up to standards, and it was kept as a FA after updates were made at that time. Imzadi 1979→06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. There is a fair amount of dissent at WT:NRHP, so they hardly "endorsed" your format. At best there is no consensus for a change. See Nyttend's comment at the end of the thread for proof of that; ditto Orlady's concern about jeopardizing the FA status of the article. Imzadi 1979→06:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The differences in the number of spans is NOT a typo, but is contentious based on multiple sources. I have provided you a clear explanation to resolve this matter. I would prefer NOT to waste the time of editors for the Pulaski Skyway on an issue that is clearly contentious with you, but not with another user that accepted my explanations.
Based on my previous stated reasons, I would appreciate your response to my request to replace the current confusing and inaccurate statements, which do not agree with statements that follow in the article, with items below with the bold highlighted changes:
"The Skyway was built as part of the Route 1 Extension and sources differ on the start and end points for the Pulaski Skyway."
"The turnpike had to be built low enough to provide enough clearance underneath the skyway, but high enough to provide sufficient clearance above river traffic in the nearby Passaic River."Wondering55Wondering55 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already addressed those two items, by number point above. Please read my original reply and stop wasting my time by posting lengthy replies about items already commented upon. A single number is not so contentious though as to require two footnotes. If the number of spans is so contentious, then honestly you must take a sentence to explain the discrepancy, something like "X says there are 108[1], but Y says there are 118.[2]" Take a look at Interstate 96 and Interstate 275 (Michigan) for articles that have to explain that MDOT (which signs and maintains the highways) and FHWA (which approves Interstate numbers in general) disagree about where I-275 ends, with sources. That is how you handle discrepancies in source material.
Hey Imzadi1979; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Michigan Unused Highways
I was curious why you changed my edits. I changed edits to that area to keep it consistent with the entire article. If you look, the "U.S. Route" identifies the route first, then the nickname for it "U.S. X" follows for subsequent references. I think it is in the best interests of the article to keep it consistent and since Michigan seems to the be only state standing alone, it was changed. Michigan is also the only one without bullet points. Why should it be different than the other states.
Michigan also uses a unique state highway identification. However, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways), and similar to the U.S. Route names, unless it is within a Michigan article, there shouldn't be any "M-X" by itself; it should have the full article like all the others.
Furthermore, this article has stated many times in its long past that map links are not references, which is why they were changed. If you think coordinates in there are best, then you probably should go ahead and change the other states to keep it consistent. Or again, since Michigan is the only state not like this, it would be easier to change that one.
Please do not undo hard work that is done with the article's consistency and clarity in mind just because it doesn't suit your style. This is why there are manuals of style. I'll be happy to help change map links if you think that's best, but not just for one state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodo920 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Although I would disagree in changing to coordinates, as one map may not show the current or referred details. I'd prefer you not undo all the work I've done in researching this.
Bodo920 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The name of the highways doesn't include the "(Michigan highway)", which should not appear in the link. WP:USSH does not specify that the parenthetical should appear, so please re-read that page which isn't part of the MOS, but rather is a naming convention. If you simply insert at the very first reference the abbreviation in parentheses per highway type, then no additional links need to be spelled out. Imzadi 1979→22:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Using the coordinates has distinct advantages because then a reader can use the WikiMiniAtlas to see the location in question in the article itself. Furthermore, the linked coordinates can be clicked to call up the GeoHack page to allow a reader to see that location in any of several different mapping services of their choice. Finally, all of the coordinates get bundled by the {{GeoGroup}} template at the bottom of the page. Imzadi 1979→23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, there's an extreme amount of overlinking in the article. It is not necessary, nor prudent, to link every occurrence of a road name or city location in every entry of the list. In fact, it's contrary to the MOS. Imzadi 1979→23:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, but I don't live in the UP again to do any research on him. He's really only got the two things going for him in terms of notability: first to mark a centerline on a rural highway (not the first to mark a centerline though) and the guy that started the county airport that became the Air Force base that is once again the county airport. Also, that video has an error in it: CR 492 was never US 41. From 1919 until 1926, it was M-15, then it was part of M-28. US 41 was routed north of what is now CR 492 and M-28 was routed along CR 492. Imzadi 1979→01:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
St. Joseph Valley Parkway 2013
Please restore the May 1 date that has already been reverted twice in less than 30 minutes. I transferred the URL from the comment at Talk:U.S. Route 31 in Michigan#Helpful referencejust now, and today is May 1, 2013, not November 25, 2008. If I were to recheck it tomorrow for whatever reason, the access date would change again. What am I missing? In addition, while the page number is needed for the SBT article that was deleted from their archives during a reformat, one is not needed for the one which wasn't purged. If articles are available online, physical print pages become irrelevant.
If you really don't want me to edit that article, then revoke my privileges from it rather than performing alterations without some kind of discussion. Yes, I performed an "undo", but my comment was descriptive. Mapsax (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
My personal preference is to keep it at the date the source was consulted, regardless of the change of URL. Since the page numbers for the original article from the print edition are listed, the URL could be dropped. I've looked up that citation as part of my polishing efforts at Michigan State Trunkline Highway System; it's a better practice to always list the print edition information if possible because online copies are ephemeral while print copies fixed to microfilms are permanent. Access to the sources does not need to be online, easy or cheap; it just needs to be possible. Using the appropriate ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number, any reader can locate a library that archives the source used to verify the information from the source; URLs to online copies are purely a courtesy. They're nice, but not necessary.
As for your "access" to edit the article, I can't revoke that. I'm not an admin, and even if I were, policy would not permit me to do such a thing. Imzadi 1979→17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
First, regarding the last comment, I regret that it was a bit hot-headed, which is why I've waited a day to reply; however, it is getting tougher to assume good faith especially with some of your corrections to my edits getting more picky and arguably pointless; for example, a recent edit had you capitalizing the "to" portion of an infinitive in a title, which I've never seen needing capitalizing in any style guide including the MOS. (It says "to" as a preposition shouldn't be, and is silent regarding verbs, only illustrating the capitalization of the main part of the verb.) I let it go since it was part of a larger edit in which you introduced the press-release template which I hadn't known existed. Minor changes like that, though, as well as ones like the earlier one that spurred a discussion about titles with respect to the very same SJVP article, appear to be changing for the sake of change, which really doesn't help WP and makes me think that you have a problem with my editing overall, especially with an absence of comments to me on the contrary. The two reverts in a matter of minutes didn't help, either.
Second, and more importantly, you really don't get to have a "personal preference" as you stated above, as none of us do; that's bordering on WP:OWN. Per WP:Cite news#URL: "accessdate: Full date when original URL was accessed...." I hid the original URL, so since readers wouldn't see it any longer, the 2008 date became irrelevant. (The reason why I didn't delete it outright was because I wanted it readily available in case the H-P had a problem with us not using a link to their paid archive; it would save someone from having to search through the page history.) It seems that the existence of the "accessdate" option in the first place is related to linkrot; the more recent the date, the more likely it is not to be dead, or redirecting to an unsafe site, and therefore helpful.
Third, and this is just an opinion: I have a reverse stance on the URL-vs.-page-number issue. If the date and live URL of the article are listed, the page number is not really necessary. Especially if the article is readily available via the link, it's highly unlikely that someone is going to take the time to go to a library to find the article. I think that it's presumptuous of us to prefer that that person do that if he or she wants to verify something. Even if that happens, if the person took the time to get there, I don't think that sifting through 20 or 40 pages of a single edition would be a big inconvenience as long as he or she knew the date. On top of that, some of us don't have access to the print copies and wouldn't know the page number anyway in order to cite it. Therefore, citations would become inconsistent, those having page numbers and those not.
According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Newspaper articles, page numbers are considered optional, however when editing with an eventual end goal of taking an article to WP:FAC, and when those reviews have garnered requests for the page numbers of print sources (see Nikkimaria's source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1 for just one example), then I include them whenever possible. In looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Web pages, it says: "the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)", so the accessdate for the online edition of a newspaper article, with a known original publication date would actually be optional. In the case of a newspaper article, if the link succumbs to linkrot, the paper edition is the fallback, so that's why I provide the full citation information to the print edition: page number, ISSN/OCLC, etc. Addressing other comments you made, MOS:CT, the section on composition titles says to capitalize verbs, and the to in an infinitive form of a verb is part of the verb, ergo it gets capitalized per our MOS. Imzadi 1979→19:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
They don't connect, and never have. The southern terminus of the St. Johns business loop is in Clinton County, and the "BUS US 127" for Lansing is a former routing of US 27 in Ingham County; it's only called that because there isn't a US 27 in Michigan anymore. Imzadi 1979→03:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
oops -didnt see that - thanks - wouldnt have expected them to be that independent with templates - for some reason the project i started - the australian maritime history project i doesnt have any amh importance factored into its box/assessment parameter as far as i can tell - but then maybe i need to ask one of the roads whizgigs to have a look for me.. cheers sats15:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Part of the reason is that the AURD banner will enable tracking by state/territory to enable the project to produce an assessment tracking table similar to the ones used in the US and Canada. The bot that updates them temporarily blanked them, but they are viewable at WP:USRD/A/S and WP:USRD/A/P respectively. The separate banner also allows the AURD project to track what articles are missing KML files, infoboxes, maps and other things, or the articles with non-compliant junction lists. All of these are things specific to a roads and highways project and best left out of the general Australian template. Imzadi 1979→15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Review of C-SPAN
Hi Imzadi1979, thank you for reviewing the C-SPAN article for me. I've looked over your comments and I think they all look reasonable. I am going to make a copy of the current article in my user space so that I can work on incorporating these suggestions, and any others I might receive. With my COI I would prefer not to edit the main article, even to fix simple errors like these. Still, I understand asking other editors to make these changes is a lot to ask.
Would you be interested in reviewing my draft version once I've completed these changes and, if they look ok, replacing the current version with my corrected draft? Please let me know if it is OK to follow up with you once I've made these corrections. If you'll be busy on other things, no problem at all. Thanks again. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Michigan State Trunkline Highway System
The State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan consists of all the state highways, including those designated as Interstate, United States, or State Trunkline highways. Maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation, the system comprises 9,716 miles (15,636 km) of trunklines in all 83 counties of the state. Its components range in scale from 10-lane urban freeways to two-lane rural undivided highways to a non-motorized highway on Mackinac Island, where cars are forbidden. The longest highway is nearly 400 miles (640 km) long, while the shortest is about three-quarters of a mile (about 1.2 km). A constitutional prohibition on state involvement in roads was removed in the early 20th century and on May 13, 1913, the State Reward Trunk Line Highways Act was passed, creating the system. Highway numbers were first posted on signs in 1919, making Michigan the second state to do so. Michigan's first freeways were built during the 1940s. Construction on Michigan's Interstates started in the late 1950s and continued until 1992. Few additional freeways have been built since 1992, and in the early years of the 21st century, projects are underway to bypass cities with new highways. (Full article...)
Imzadi, you still live in the Grand Rapids area, right? I was curious if any NRHP sites listed here that don't have images are near you or are convenient to get to. A modern image of the Rood Building would be another good one to get. I don't know where in the metro area you live, so if none are close, that's okay. Chris857 (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been working out of town for the last several months, but I can always try to see what I can do when I'm back in the area again. Imzadi 1979→02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It's all good. I figure you were busy with the GLAM conference at an inopportune time for me, but things still worked out well. We made the centennial, something I was afraid wouldn't happen. I started a new job last fall after a period of unemployment, and work ate into my free time and energy last fall and this winter just when I really needed to work on the article through ACR and FAC the most. I got lucky that it only took one FAC to get the star. Imzadi 1979→05:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
IAusR enhancements
AussieLegend has suggested some possible enhancements we could and IMHO should make to {{infobox road}}. Some are AU specific, some affect all templates. I wouldnt consider any to be controversial. Are you able to code them, or suggest them to another who can? -- Nbound (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Imzadi1979,
I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject U.S. Roads talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Hi there, I've addressed all of your concerns there. Would you be willing to recheck the article? Thanks, TBrandley (T • C • B) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Following up on C-SPAN peer review
Hi again Imzadi, I wanted to let you know again that I really appreciated your peer review of the C-SPAN article and I found your feedback very helpful. It took me a little while, but I have created a draft in my user space that incorporates your suggestions, along with some suggestions from User:Groupuscule.
As I explained before, I am working on this C-SPAN article not only as a fan, but also as a consultant. I am looking for an editor to review the changes to my draft and to replace the live version of the article with my draft if they find my changes to be an improvement. At the very least I would love to have you review my changes based on your feedback and offer a comment on the C-SPAN Talk page. If you're interested in seeing how I updated the article please check out the following:
Hi again Imzadi, I'm sorry to reach out to you about this again, but I haven't been able to find other editors to review the changes I've made to the C-SPAN draft. I really appreciated your initial feedback and have put a lot of time and effort into updating and improving this draft based on your suggestions. Would you have even just five minutes to look over the changes I made and comment on the Talk page? I anticipate that when I find other editors to help review they'll want to know what the original reviewers think of the changes. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The community has been more than patient with Raul and his personal fiefdom. They're over. Nothing significant will change between now and then. I see no reason to deny reality.PumpkinSkytalk13:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? So the Emporership of Raul can perpetuate even longer despite the fact that he's done nothing for so long? The community has been more than patient. What a farce.PumpkinSkytalk13:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Edits such as this and this are quite troubling. When you were given the rollback user right, it was expected that this be used only to revert vandalism. PSky's edits, though against consensus and undoubtedly controversial, did not fit this definition. Could you please exercise more restraint? Otherwise I or another admin may have to remove the user right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing contrary to current consensus, during an open discussion that may change that consensus, is vandalism in my book. Imzadi 1979→02:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I assumed you took that stand. However, per WP:ROLLBACK: "Use of standard rollback for ... reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with ... is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." I don't question PSky's good faith, although he is a bit more enthusiastic in the matter than prudent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Review of Interstate 75 in Michigan
I plan to do this in two runs through, because its getting near 2am now and I cant guarantee Ill catch everything.
Lead
It would be worth working in a link to the "American Legion".
RD
The jumping between freeway and I-75 to refer to the roadway is a bit clunky, especially if you dont know whether that section is one of the named freeway sections.
The use of "follows" - Do you mean it follows another road, or that it becomes a different road (at least as far as name goes). I presume the latter, but it'd be better rewritten (this occurs elsewhere beyond the RD too)
"Known as..." -> "Known colloquially as..."
" The Chrysler Freeway runs through the suburb of Hazel Park,[7][8] site of the "worst freeway for accidents in Metro Detroit" at a curve near 9 Mile Road.[9]" --> needs to be reworded, sounds like the whole suburb is the accident site rather than the curve.
Regarding [3]... is this necessary? Most instances of {{cite map}} do not use the cartography field, since the cartography is assumed to be done by the publisher unless specified. You would know better than I, but I think there's no need to specify that information twice. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]22:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I've had comments at FAC before noting the lack of cartography information when it was omitted, so I'm starting to make sure it's supplied, even when redundant to the publisher. Imzadi 1979→19:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I have updated the I-75 map description with the requested information. Both the base map and highway data are NTAD. 25or6to4 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Michigan State Trunkline Highway System and your reversion of the edit to replace "LP" with "Lower Peninsula" and a link to Lower Peninsula of Michigan. That was included because not every WP reader is from Michigan or knows what the "LP" means. Yes, it is noted earlier in the article, but that is an issue, it is too far - physically off the screen, 3 paragraphs and over 350 words away. Having the information spelled out and linked improves the readability for WP users and does not appear to have a downside. — MrDolomite • Talk19:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
My general writing style is that once an abbreviation is introduced, and in this case it is, it is consistently used. This article was reviewed earlier this year at WP:FAC and promoted as a Featured Article with that text unchanged, and it was displayed as Today's Featured Article with 18,100 readers that day, also unchanged. Imzadi 1979→19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
All the material I included are supported by linked citations, especially the MDOT link showing the new signage directing local traffic and Blue Water Bridge traffic with American and Canadian flags on the signs themselves. Look at the photo in the new MDOT link. Regarding the bare URL link issue, what Wikipedia app is there to flesh out the citations? Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple of points to consider:
Just because you have a citation doesn't mean that the text being inserted is of equal quality as the rest of the article.
Just because you have a citation doesn't mean that the detail being added is needed information, or even correct. (The 2008 MDOT flyer said construction "would start in 2008", yet according to newspaper articles, it didn't actually start until 2011. Beware the difference between scheduled and did.)
Just because you have a citation doesn't mean that there isn't a better citation to use. We do prefer third-party sources like newspapers or books over first party sources like press releases or MDOT webpages. (When it comes to historical maps, I do prefer to use the old MSHD/MDOT maps because I have most of them in a digital format from the Library of Michigan making a very complete archive to reference stretching back to the 1919 and the 1920s.) This is especially important for articles headed to GAN, ACR or FAC, like I plan to do with these last two mainline Interstates in Michigan. I-96 is an FA, I-75 should be an FA soon, and I-69 just passed GAN.
As for fleshing out citations, there are several tools, but I just manually use the citation templates and insert all of the necessary parameters.
Last point, but it is kinda in bad form to edit an article some is actively editing when they posted the {{in use}} banner at the top. I still have work to do on I-94's history section to remove substandard sources and replace them with newspaper articles or historical maps. I actually took a nap today hoping that other people would stop editing the article and causing edit conflicts so that I can get my work done.
Forgot a point, but when copying and pasting full text from one article to another, especially if you aren't the only editor to write/edit it, you need to include a mention of where you got it in your edit summary. If you don't, you break the attribution history which is a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license we use here. It's kinda the same idea as citing your sources by including footnotes, just done through the edit summary.
If your edits reveal problems, I will point that out in corrections such as changing edits which do not make sense such as "westbound signs omit American flag" which is confusing. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you please wait until I'm done? I posted {{in-use}} for a reason: to avoid edit conflicts. I have a half-dozen or more browser tabs open with different newspaper articles from newspaperarchive.com or news.google.com open at any given time so I can cross-reference different facts and apply the necessary updates. Sometimes my browser starts to stall, and I have to quick save my work in the edit window before I lose it, and yes, sometimes that means I save incomplete typing that I will finish/correct in a subsequent edit. However, everyone of your edits today has conflicted with mine, causing me more issues and even some lost work I have to redo.
As I said on your talkpage, I will remove the template from the top of the article when I'm finished. Please, as a courtesy to me, stop editing for now. Imzadi 1979→17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, fine, I quit. Have fun with an unfinished article, and inconsistent notes in the other. All other exits note which elements are signed and which are not. Unless the signs on westbound I-94/I-69 also include the flag, then the notes need to reflect that, period. But no matter, I will now leave you to finish the I-94 article yourself while I get the other 11 non-GA articles for Michigan's highway system up to GA status. Imzadi 1979→18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
All I am asking is that you proofread your revisions before uploading. You have been making obvious errors such as "signs westbound American flag" which clearly does not make sense. Please continue, but watch what you type. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I told you, but you apparently didn't listen/read what I had to say. The number of browsers tabs I had open on my computer causes my browser to stall at points when I'm using the one website. In those cases, I need to save my edit, in whatever state is in, or I may lose the whole edit if it crashes. When I get back into the edit window again to pick up where I left off, I re-read my typing, apply corrections and continue with my writing. Edit conflicts only exacerbate the situation, forcing me to save more incomplete edits more frequently. I've quit editing the article, so feel free to continue where I left off. Imzadi 1979→18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean "I am very sorry that I repeatedly edit warred with you as you were trying to make much-needed improvements, and I would greatly appreciate if you would finish making them." --Rschen775419:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll get to it when I have time. --Mauer (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Done –Mauer (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hack (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
