User talk:NE2/Archive 19

Pageviews

[1] :) (although I undid mine, not knowing you'd added yours, thinking mine not that funny, perhaps I should re-revert myself and then block myself for edit warring?... but I digress) That is a very odd page indeed... we actually have page titles that start with http:// ??? and whats more, that page gets views? ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually responsible for some (all?) of its views. I have my browser set up so I can type an article name in the URL box and hit ctrl-enter to go to the Wikipedia article. Now if I open a new window it gives me Google's main page, and if I hit ctrl-enter without typing anything it takes the URL that's already there and so goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Http://www.google.com/. It's actually a deleted redirect that's now on the blacklist :) --NE2 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pranknet

Per the BLP discussion, would you mind editing this article yourself? NTK (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a hit-and-run guy :| --NE2 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York & Ottawa Railway

Good day, I am the one who originally created the expanded New York & Ottawa Railway entry because others in the past put in misinformation, myths, etc. I have studied the line, had family worked it, grew up beside its abandoned r-o-w, created a web site solely about it and wrote a manuscript that is awaiting publication about the history of the entire railway from Tupper Lake to Ottawa which will include brief histories of the independant company lines that linked to it (ie - Brooklyn Cooperge Company). I watch the Wiki page often, ensuring that the entry remains correct in all ways and if something is added, I refer to my materials and fellow researchers to either see if we had missed something, which does happen, or if the new entry is false. I am writing you because I strongly disagree with your removal of the Defunct Rys of Ontario Category. The Ontario Pacific Railway and Ottawa & New York Railway were Ontario companies and later owned by the NY&O, which is why they are in the NY&O entry and not their own. I believe it would be better to keep the category with the NY&O entry because many don't go to the O&NY redirect entry, not knowing that was even an existing company. Bonfire34 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that then Category:Defunct Ontario railways includes the NY&O, which is incorrect. Would a "see also" link to List of defunct Ontario railways satisfy your objections? --NE2 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "see also" link would be a good compromise. -- Bonfire34 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages linking to New Hyde Park (unincorporated), New York

I notice that you redirected the page New Hyde Park (unincorporated), New York to New Hyde Park (Village), New York#Greater New Hyde Park. This is a very sensible solution. Note, though, that there are dozens of pages that link to the former page. It would be helpful (though not strictly necessary) to link those pages directly to the target of the redirect. I'll start work on some of these, but if you're inclined to help out, you can see the list by going to New Hyde Park (unincorporated), New York and clicking "What links here". Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would not be helpful at all. Please read WP:R2D. --NE2 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Vermont Railway

If the Central Vermont Railway was standard gauge then there was, until 1873, a break-of-gauge with the Grand Trunk Railway at the Canadian border. The latter owned the former so such a break of gauge would be unlikely. See Indian Gauge#Canada. Peter Horn User talk 01:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Railway

I withdrew the speedy requests to rename the Great Northern Railway categories after your reasonable objection. I have opened a full discussion here. Tassedethe (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:2ft

Template:2ft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at TimberWolf Railz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your very thoughtful and helpful comment at Talk:Pit of despair. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[2] Nice to see some recognition by other projects of your work. Well Done. Dave (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1

Per a discussion that followed your comment, the candidate page has been moved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XfD discussions can get a bit heated and personal …

… but that was funny. pablo_hablo. 13:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my most recent edits 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using wikipedia at my school and I think someone else is making edits at the same time sadface. 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-10 and related users

Restored solely as redirects to talk page, any admin can check the history if needed...Skier Dude (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --NE2 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal Railway

I saw the G6 tag you placed on that page (a redirect); what's the deletion cleanup/reverse move that needs to be done? It looks like the railway's current name is PCRC, so the PCR name should remain a redirect. I see the page has been moved recently, but if anything, another move would likely not be "uncontroversial" and thus better suited for WP:RM discussion. Let me know, thanks, JamieS93 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for articles about railroads is to omit the "Company". If you look through categories such as Category:Illinois railroads you'll see this; the official corporate name of almost every one of these includes "Company". --NE2 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see. The page was moved from "Panama Railway" to "Panama Canal Railway [Company]". So moving it to a normal title (with the "Canal") is a rather uncontroversial action.

Done. Cheers, JamieS93 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --NE2 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at TimberWolf Railz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TimberWolf Railz (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Jefferson

Thanks for making the contact; I'd wondered how it got classified this way, so the explanation is quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newark and Passaic Railway

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at JimIrwin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Irwin (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Nice idea. I'll continue from my normal account. IMO, the main problem is that talkheader is not moved on the top due to some AWB bug. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood. My plan was to make all the cleanups written in WP:TPL at once. But due to bugs of AWB it's impossible right now. During this process I reported 5 (five) bugs. This replacement it was like step 1. I'll continue manually and not automatic mainly due to a serious bug and of course due to the things you just noticed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Sorry to edit your page. Snake Valley is a valley that has no page, but exists in both Utah and Nevada. I am working on 1) combing the links for "Snake Valley, Nevada" and "Snake Valley (Utah)" into one link, "Snake Valley (NV&UT)" and 2) actually adding information on Snake Valley to Snake Valley (NV&UT), a place I am very familiar and have worked in the last 2.5 years. Sorry about the edit! I leave it up to you whether to re-revert the edit again.

New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company

I understand the rationale for the sort order for railroad names that end in "railroad", "railway", etc, but it seemed that this one should be an exception, since the name isn't simply "New Jersey Railroad", but is "New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company". It seems more natural to use the full name in this case, without moving it to the top of the New Jersey list. It doesn't really bother me, but one of the reasons I didn't notice NJR&T in the original list was that I was looking for it between "New Jersey and Pennsylvania" and "New Jersey Shore Line". In any case, I won't bother editing it again, but think about whether the sort order rule really applies in this case.

Consider a list containing "New Jersey Canal and Railroad Transportation Co.", "New Jersey Railroad and Canal Transportation Co.", and "New Jersey Streetcar and Transportation Co.". Would it really make sense to list them as:

New Jersey Railroad and Canal Transportation Co.
New Jersey Canal and Railroad Transportation Co.
New Jersey Streetcar and Transportation Co.

Thanks. -- Jim Irwin (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, it's really the New Jersey Railroad - and that's what I usually see it called - but in those earliest days the New Jersey legislature liked to add "and Transportation Company", possibly to indicate that the company would also be operating the trains over its railroad. --NE2 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. -- Jim Irwin (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carreteras

hi, thanks for commenting about the proposed merger at wt:USRD regarding Carretera Central (Puerto Rico). On the side issue of whether the Carretera Central (Cuba) article can "See also" to it and vice versa, it seems to me that they may be very comparable as important historic highways in comparable places. The Puerto Rico one seems to be the most important historic highway in Puerto Rican history. If the Cuba one is the most important one in its history (which I don't know), then it would seem to be okay to link to the other one in a "See also" low-key way, as being of likely interest to readers interested in historic highways of big Caribbean islands. I see also that they are different in many ways, too (PR's was created in colonial times; Cuba's is east-west and a bit later, post its independence from Spain). I tried adding back the See also's with a bit more context. Does that work for you? If you want to remove the See also's entirely again, though, I won't revert or object. Thanks! doncram (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they're any more "comparable" than any other two historic highways. --NE2 22:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If there were a category of historic highways, which I can't find (I see no parents to Category:Historic trails and roads in the United States ), I would add them both, and that would provide a lesser degree of navigation btwn them, as is more appropriate. Should there be a Category:Historic highways? I don't find even a world-wide parent Category:Highways. I am not very much a Roads editor, and don't want to get started in revising whatever category hierarchy exists tho, myself. doncram (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a question then of what's "historic" enough to go in the category. --NE2 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web.archive.org official links

At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Central Military Wagon Road

A while ago I wrote Oregon Route 58 and redirected Oregon Central Military Wagon Road there. Would you mind adding any details from OR 58 to your article, and removing some from OR 58 with a summary style link to {{main|Oregon Central Military Wagon Road}}? --NE2 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I did what you asked. Reduced military road info in Oregon Route 58 article to 1 para; kept 1888 NY Times reference and added 2 generic references; and inserted summary-style link. Chg'd link at Oregon Central Military Wagon Road to send readers to Stone Bridge and the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road article (vice Oregon Route 58 article). Also, incorp'd number of military wagon road details from Oregon Route 58 text into Oregon Central Military Wagon Road article. New info was very helpful in "Scandal and litigation" and "Route" sections. Please look over chgs and let me know if result is what you had in mind.--Orygun (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read through it, but it looks about like what I was thinking. Good job. --NE2 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009: 2nd reverts

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.

On the following pages: Monticello Railway Museum, Indiana Transportation Museum, Infobox rail museum Infobox SG rail museum, Illinois Railway Museum You've reverted and removed information again that the general consensus at WP:CNB has not agreed upon without giving valid reasons for the revert, this constitutes as tendentious and disruptive editing, and has resulted in another edit war between the disputed content. It is politely asked that you please refrain from such actions without seeking proper discussion and/or mediation regarding the subject first. –TimberWolf Railz (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have removed the rollback privilege on your account for reverting edits which are not clearly "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense", per WP:ROLLBACK. Apologies, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 5 in California

Sorry to butt in, but I reverted your revert for several reasons. First off, all the removed links I removed were red. Second off, much of the "removed" information was hideously inaccurate, based on my analysis of the sources cited. For example, before my edit, a couple of exits were listed twice. Third, I actually added some stuff in various areas. So I'm reverting your revert. You OK with that? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REDLINK. As for the exits "listed twice", they were actually different interchanges that may share a number. --NE2 06:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serious. Grande Vista Ave was listed twice, same exit number, same mile marker, once where it is and once smack-dab in the middle of the East LA interchange where it isn't. In another part of the section, it called something in Los Angeles SR 163, when that's in San Diego. A lot of the "sourcing" prior to my edit was from the misreading of a source--they mistook I-10 for Fourth Street, and footnotes for state highway numbers. Was the primary reason for the revert the dip in # of bytes? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - there were a few repeated ones; someone screwed up a premature merge from Santa Ana Freeway.

SR 163 was initially in Los Angeles - see http://cahighways.org/maps/1963renumber.jpg . --NE2 06:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deleted Euclid Avenue instead of the Grande Vista repeat. Also, could you put Ditman-Indiana and Indiana-Calzona back to the way I had it? It makes it seem like there are two ramps to Ditman, two to Calzona, and four to Indiana, when in reality there are four to Ditman, four to Calzona, and from any of those ramps you can connect to Indiana. Also, I had added Hollywood as a destination for 101 in there, Downey as a destination for Florence, and scratched the Fourth Street referenced, as the site they source shows something more akin to the 10 Freeway than Fourth. (In case you hadn't guessed, I'm a map junkie from LA) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with signage, and which exit is actually signed for Indiana - as far as I know, the first exit in each direction is signed for Indiana, and the second for Calzona or Ditman. Blame Caltrans.

As for SR 60, look carefully at the map and http://cahighways.org/maps/1963renumber.jpg . The route going east from I-5 at Fourth is LR 172; the dashed line along present SR 60 was a proposed relocation. That freeway was not built until 1965, so for a year or two SR 60 was on Fourth. --NE2 06:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to question your integrity, but looking carefully, the solid line 172 seems to be to be following the same route as the present-day CA-60 (east from the East LA interchange), the dashed line is not SR 60. If it were Fourth, there would have been some sort of a line starting at the 5 between the 60 and 10, and continuing to the intersection of the 60 and 710. There is no dashed line along SR 60, it is a solid line on that map. Trust me on this, I've been on CA-60 many a time. Can I get a link to the CalTrans site? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, look at the map in the reference. --NE2 06:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--I acknowledge that there's something going on on 4th, 3rd, and Pomona Blvd, but it ain't CA-60, as US60 was still in existence. In the great 1964 renumbering (after the 1963 map), US60 between LA and Pomona became I-10, and the 60 was reassigned to the Pomona Freeway. Before any of that was built, 172 was moved off of 4th/3rd/Pomona Blvd and onto the present alignment, which we see on http://cahighways.org/maps/1963renumber.jpg . Confusing, I know. Please hit me up with an I-5 CalTrans link. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the Pomona Freeway didn't open until 1965.

What do you mean by "an I-5 CalTrans link"? --NE2 06:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me on this. I see no CA-60 anywhere on your source, because before 1964-65 there was no CA-60, and when there was, it was on the present-day route. At best, the comment needs a better source than that map to prove that CA-60 ran on 4th for less than two years; at worse it's just wrong, and either way it belongs in the 4th Street article, not the I-5 article. I mean a link to your comment on CalTrans when you reverted my signage changes in the East LA area. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SR 60 came around in 1964. The freeway was not finished until 1965.

I still don't understand what you mean by "an I-5 CalTrans link". --NE2 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better source is http://www.cahighways.org/169-176.html#172, though I'd be inclined to hide it since CA-60 only bore the designation for one year. Earlier, you said something about CalTrans and exits regarding Calzona and Indiana...surely there's a link for that someplace? I'm out, but I might do some more on I-5 later in the week. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know that Caltrans posts the signs, right? --NE2 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm a Californian whose been staring at maps since I was two years. I'd drive I-5 in Los Angeles tomorrow, but that'd be OR.

Well then I don't know what you want. My only comment about Caltrans was that you can blame them for the inconsistencies in how the exits are signed. --NE2 07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about the SR 163 redirects and why I did them the way I did...the SR 163 redirects currently give you the freeway in San Diego, with no mention of the Los Angeles routing. If you were to add something about the LA routes in the 163 article, I'd be fine with it, but as they're nowhere, I think it'd be better to link them to the route they traversed, AKA US 6, US 99, I-5 Business or San Fernando Road. There's a method to my madness. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the former SR 163 should redirect to San Fernando Road, make a redirect there. But there's no reason to replace a disambiguated link with a link to a different page. --NE2 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BTWS, the Vermont Railway map is total kickass Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP, HAER, other bridges in PA

Hi, could you comment at Talk:List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania? Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Textile mill

The other option would be to actually write an article on textile mills. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert my edits for now. All 100+ of them. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Maps site missing

Some time ago, you sent me a link to some websites that contain old maps. Unfortunatley, that link has disappeared, which is too bad because I could use it for an article I'm working on right now. Did they change the URL or did the website just die out? ----DanTD (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which one I sent, but these are currently functional: [3][4][5][6] --NE2 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for your opinions here

Could I ask for your opinions here with regard to your messages on my talk page. I think that when a user has added multiple spam links, and been warned about them, then adding additional links is vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories.
Message added 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

At this time the document supported by this talk page is crude and difficult to read. Nevertheless, the section within the talk page may be of interest to you. It is another area where the use of cmbox was discussed. Thanks again for your input. Pknkly (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Pknkly (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your advice to seek automation beyond the use of a template. Not being a programmer I will develop the manual process first and then get someone's consideration at the the Village Pump. If I have a manual process in place I can use that as a proof of concept. Pknkly (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask first, because I doubt you'll get much support. I may be wrong, of course. --NE2 03:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Connecticut Company

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Connecticut Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contribution Victuallers (talk 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Hello there NE2. I saw your comment at WT:AC/N and I was wondering if you would please retract that; it is needlessly..."snarky", as Durova put it. NW (Talk) 03:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Arbcom clerk

drama

Clerk action - after refusing to strike offending comments at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Mitchazenia and for persisting in inflammatory statements, NE2 is blocked for one week and banned from all Arbcom pages for one month starting today. This block and ban may be appealed to Arbcom. Manning (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NE2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What the... are you joking?

Decline reason:

As stated, this was an official block from an ArbCom clerk, so your only method of appeal is to ArbCom via email at: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NE2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If this were a block from ArbCom, you'd probably be correct. But ArbCom clerks don't, or shouldn't, have such power.

Decline reason:

I am declining this request as an administrator, and not as an arb clerk, on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which unblock is the proper remedy. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NE2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's obviously a horrible block. There's your claim.

Decline reason:

No explanation given for why it's a horrible block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|Then maybe you should leave it to someone who can see that it's a horrible block?}}

This block is a bad block, for two reasons. Arbcom clerks (not selected by the community to have any extra special authority more than admins in general) should not have the authority to impose unreviewable blocks. In addition, this particular block is a bad block in general, being far too long to be preventative, especially considering this user's previous almost-clean block log. This has the appearance of being a block for having thoughts contrary to those the Royal Court has deemed acceptable and refusing to take those statements back when threatened. This is not how we should be operating as a project. There were also several escalating steps that Manning could have taken before imposing such a long (and allegedly unreviewable) block, including informing NE2 that he was prohibited from posting on the arbcom pages and enforcement of that specific topic ban by shorter blocks. Therefore, I find this block to be improper, and see that the previous refusals to unblock were based on the assumption that this block is unreviewable by regular admins. I disagree with this, and plan on removing this block. I do feel that it's proper for an arbcom clerk to declare that someone may not edit arbcom pages, and this one-month topic ban mentioned above may be enforced by short blocks as needed. kmccoy (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've notified a few other pages, I'm going to accept your unblock request and remove the block. Please be aware that the topic ban from arbcom-related pages is valid and remains in effect. If you comment on an arbcom-related page, you will be blocked again (I'll do it myself, if I see it.) The validity of that ban needs to be contested with arbcom and its clerks. Please keep your contributions civil at all times and stay away from arbcom-related topics and the clerk who blocked you until that situation has resolved itself. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall go and sin no more. --NE2 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears I still lack the capacity for sin (or for good). --NE2 06:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there we go. Is adultery OK if she asks first? --NE2 06:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec making part of this irrelevant) Honestly, I would contact the Arbitration Committee if you wish to appeal the block. Several administrators are probably really queasy about reverting a block an ArbCom clerk made, even if they are not allowed to make blocks. Also, then the Arbitration Committee will have the power to discipline the clerk, if necessary. (This is not a comment on the merits of the comments you made; when I wrote this comment I had not read them.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-auto}} Hmmm, I seem to be autoblocked... stupid software... --NE2 06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's removed. If not, remove the nowiki tags. kmccoy (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar username

Have you ever encountered N2e? Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's my ~~sock~~ brother's uncle's dog!

No, actually, I've never run into him. --NE2 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you. I'm N2e. Nyttend asked me the same question on my Talk page; don't know what brought the question to mind. Feel free to look at my User page should you be interested in learning more. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered, simply because I see you occasionally and had never seen him before, so at first I thought he was you. I wonder if there's a User:Nyttned running around? Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Public Service Railway lines

Above article started 02/01/07. Do you recall where you got info as it is unreferenced, and would be handy to see. ThanksDjflem (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can get this book through interlibrary loan; I did some years ago and it had most if not all the information there. There's also a list of lines from 1919 here (presumably before numbers were assigned). --NE2 19:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I'm coming here as reverts are not the place for discussion. Kawartha Lakes is not a county, it is a city. I am trying to adapt the template for the way I am writing all the articles (which yes, will include the number), so I do not see why you insist on changing it to your preferred version. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the name of the route is not "8"; it's "something 8". What is the typical abbreviation used by the city or media? The former seems to use "CKL Road", and at least one newspaper article does too. Are there any objections to that? --NE2 06:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its Glenarm Road, route 8 in the city of Kawartha Lakes. That would be the language the locals use to describe direction and that is the language I will use, regardless of what some newspaper journalist/editor decides to call them. But you aren't listening. I do not want the template to do that. I will do it manually, I only want the template for displaying signs, which I can follow with the names and numbers. I am removing it from the template, please do not put it back or I will stop using the template on those articles. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's CKL Road 8 (Glenarm Road). That's how we display it. --NE2 20:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats how the American roads display it. I am using my own system where I explain things and don't throw around useless abbreviations, thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not useless, because "8" could mean many things - is it a provincial highway? A city street? --NE2 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are the articles are named by their numbered road designations, but I changed the templates to put "Kawartha Lakes Road X" instead of your preference of "CKL X". It is not necessary to use repeated abbreviations when I can create a better looking article with spelt out words, a change which you just needlessly reverted due to your insistence on having the templates your way. You are being counterproductive, as I will stop creating these articles (And I am the only one making new articles for Ontario right now, not Texas, not Connecticut) if you continue to set up a roadblock. On these lines, see also this discussion - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jct banner issue

Apparently there are two ways to sign business routes in MD. One with the banner, and the other with a special shield that doesn't need a banner. Currently, none of US-Bus, MD-Bus (regular shield), or MD-Business (special shield), call for the banner, but MD-Bus should. I'm stumped and hopefully you can help. Thanks.--Fredddie ™ 07:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're having "MD-Bus" and "MD-Business" output differently - shouldn't the green shield be something like "MD-Bus-green" to make it more user-friendly? Anyway, I think it's because Template:Jct/plate/MD redirects to Template:Jct/plate - I'll try doing like Template:Jct/plate/VA. --NE2 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, that's not it. It's because {{Jct/banner}} calls {{Jct/US-Bus}} to find out which banner to use - but Maryland uses no banner for US-Bus. I've hard-coded "MD-Bus" into the former template, but I recommend switching to something else like "MD-Bus-plate". It should be working now. --NE2 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Fredddie ™ 18:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2

The above FLC nomination has been restarted. Please a) clearly restate the remaining issues, if necessary, and b) if possible, make a succinct declaration (i.e., support, oppose, or neutral). Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to lend legitimacy to the FLC process

--NE2 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's your choice, but can you at least indicate whether your concerns were resolved (here or at the FLC, it doesn't matter)? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it's worth telling, how did your opinion of the FLC process get to where it is? I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm genuinely interested. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was never fond of the whole idea of a 'featured list'. Lists are more of a navigational tool than an actual article. I especially dislike the requirement for a lead; what would go in, for instance, list of Ohio railroads that wouldn't fit better in Ohio#Transportation or an appropriate spinoff like transportation in Ohio? It (and the silly "featured topic" process) also seems to encourage creation of stuff like list of highways in Hamilton County, New York, which should really be only the county route list with maybe a brief mention of higher-level highways. Other general information should be in Hamilton County, New York where the reader is more likely to find it. --NE2 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War and Peace

Have you read it and do you recommend it? :) Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually currently reading it (abridged, since that's what the parents have :|) and haven't yet formed an opinion. --NE2 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land bridge

Thanks for taking this on. I don't have any sources for this, but I think the term "land bridge" referring to intermodal transport originates from the use of North American railroads as an alternate to the Panama Canal for Asia-Europe freight. Essentially it was a "bridge" between the oceans over land. The Eurasian Land Bridge appears to be a corruption of the term; it would more properly be called a Eurasian transcontinental railway. --NE2 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll try to get the article started this week sometime. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on the article here in userspace. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is done and posted. Please see here for a list of items the article is lacking. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, I just started a stub on rail land bridges. Cla68 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU made the first CRRLI article

I've been waiting for a couple of years for somebody to write an article on the Central Railroad of Long Island, and after a discussion on Wikipedia talk:NYCPT, I decided to redirect a chapter from Central Branch (Long Island Rail Road) to it, only to find that it was deleted and that you originally created it. I'm glad you made it, but what happened? ----DanTD (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember - I probably created some notes in the wrong place. Ask an admin for the deleted history of Talk:Central Railroad of Long Island. --NE2 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Road Transportation

I removed the parkways not in Boston and moved Storrow Drive and Memorial Drive (Cambridge) to the renamed "Parkways" subsection. I agree, that is the only way the template scope is sustainable. Still left U.S. 3, I-95 and Memorial Drive though their inclusion is debatable as well. The next step I suggest would be a separate template for all the MPC/MDC/DCR parkways, which could also use an article or at least an expanded section for the rather well documented history they have. Rainy day project for now. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/173.55.217.134

I-210? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, who cares. Make each reversion of an IP on a California article worth 500 points in the cuppa roads. --NE2 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad

Yes, probably makes sense if you know the facts. I was thinking that might be the case but have not had time to check. This article has had a history of IP vandalism or maybe very bad edits. If you think that a change to the intro will fix this, then I'm OK with the protection being removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the intro needs changes of this sort; it already mentions that it was originally the SPLA&SL. --NE2 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parovoz.com

You're probably right about it not being notable.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

temporary cats

See my recent comment at Template_talk:Reporting_mark#Side_effect:_ghost_link_to_argument. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of see also topics

Hi there NE2, I disagree with these removals of the see also sections at Chili Line and National Railroad Of Mexico. I disagreed with the assertions behind the removal, but it appears I was unable to convey what I meant in the space of an edit summary. I said that the relationships in question relate to the fact that these railroad enterprises are north-south narrow gauge lines with the same founder. You repeated your assertion without refuting the crux of mine. I don't think that you can refute that this is a non-trivial connection especially in light of the fact that the man was interested in building exactly such transcontinental railway. They are related topics.

If there were an article about the San Juan Extension then I would have linked to it, but the CTSRR is a good approximation. It is an obviously related line that just isn't linked in the prose yet. And it's good extant example of a railroad line similar to the Chili Line. Do you have a policy related reason for any of this?Synchronism (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very relevant that they were founded by the same person - that's just because Palmer was a proponent of narrow gauge. The National of Mexico is far to the east of any possible southerly extension of the D&RG. If you feel there needs to be more of a link, I recommend improving William Jackson Palmer with more about the railroads he founded.

As for the C&TS, there's absolutely no relation between it and the Chili Line, except that they intersect (and only anachronistically at that). It is already linked where it should be, at Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad#San Juan Extension. --NE2 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying that Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America should only be correlated at Richard Branson. The links aren't meant to insinuate relationships that never existed as in "the National of Mexico is far to the east of any possible southerly extension of the D&RG". These topics may only be on the periphery of one another, but I only linked them to provide interested readers related material, which is the point of the see also sections.

There certainly is a relationship between the SJE and the Santa Fe Branch, when southward progress was halted the railroad began looking west, call that anachronistic if you want, it's still a relationship.Synchronism (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... the Virgins are both licensed and partly owned by the Virgin Group; that's already more of a connection than a single person. Unless you're saying BNSF Railway should have Geico in the see also section... --NE2 12:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the Virgins are linked at them though, Virgin Insurance springs to mind. If Berkshire Hathaway owned another railroad, then it might make sense to link to it in the see also section of BNSF.Synchronism (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Money says it's owned by the Virgin Group... and if Berkshire owned another railroad, it would probably be mentioned in the body of the BNSF article. The problem is that here you don't have any sources showing any relation between the Chili Line and National of Mexico. But putting it in see also isn't helpful, since the reader will click, read, and ask himself why he was directed there. --NE2 13:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absent sources linking such a hypothetical road to the BNSF, a link in the see also section would suffice. See also sections don't require sources, at I least I've never seen any that are cited, if something can be cited then it can go in the article. The reader will click the link and wonder why the connection is made only until they read some of the other article and discover that: Palmer was a narrow gauge proponent, Palmer founded both lines, Palmer wanted to create railroads that connected Mexico and the US, both companies were incorporated in the same state by the same person. Here's a source by the way, though its quality is debatable.[7]Synchronism (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source mentions the frustrated southern expansion of the Rio Grande and Palmer's response to that, by obtaining a different concession.[8]Synchronism (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't say that the Mexican National was a response to the D&RG's expansion being limited. --NE2 04:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of p.123 and all of p.133 establish that connection, that Palmer was still interested in MX-US rail.Synchronism (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE first American railroad in Mexico was built not with any idea of a ** railroad invasion of Mexico" but as an incident in the attempt of Boston capitalists to extend the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe to the Pacific coast and thus break the territorial monopoly of Collis P. Huntington and his associates in the Southern Pacific railroad. As the line of the Atchison was pushed westward it had come into conflict with William J. Palmer's Denver and Rio Grande project, with the result that by 1878 it was determined that while Palmer would be unable to build toward the Mexican border, the At- chison could not build into western Colorado. This meant that the future extension of the Atchison would be toward the southwest.

WITHIN the week in which the Mexican Central received its concession, Diaz, with the idea that there was room enough in Mexico for more than one longitudinal line, also granted a concession to the Palmer-Sullivan interests operating under the name of the ** Mexican National Con- struction company" (Compania constructora Nacional Mexi- cana).^ The date of this concession was September 13, 1880.
General Palmer, the head of this enterprise and the builder of the Denver and Rio Grande railroad, was an advocate of narrow-gauge railroads, particularly as a means of reaching mines in a rugged country. The name chosen for his Col- orado line indicates his plan to extend to the Mexican border, — ^a plan which was frustrated by the Atchison interests, who obtained possession of the Raton pass after a contest that is memorable in American railroad history.

Please explain how this does not verify my assertions.Synchronism (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only states that there was a connection between Palmer and the Mexican National. The Rio Grande is just mentioned to give context as to who Palmer was. --NE2 04:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... you recognize the contextual relevance? Cool.Synchronism (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no. Just because Palmer was behind both projects (and the Chili Line isn't even mentioned, only the D&RG) doesn't mean there's any greater relevance. When talking about Palmer, one might mention that he was head of the Rio Grande to provide a bit of background, since that's what he's best known for. One wouldn't mention the Mexican National or Chili Line unless there was a direct relation between one of those and the topic one is writing about. --NE2 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what the first source I provided on your talk page does, it draws the connection between the Chile Line and Mexican National. Significance does not need to be so heavily considered for see also sections, see WP:seealso. Peripheral contextual relevance, which is quite apparent in these cases, is the threshold.Synchronism (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such connection; can you point it out? --NE2 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly. You appear to simply ignore it over and over and say that it is insignificant, a tacit admission that there is relevance.Synchronism (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only connection is that Palmer headed both. The source you copied above doesn't even mention the Chili Line. --NE2 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense NE2, but I still disagree and I'm done here. If you'd like to discuss these topics some more with me I will join you on the respective talk page. I'm sorry we could not reach any agreement here, but I look forward to working productively with you in the future, being an admirer of your work.Synchronism (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Multiple WikiProjects

I have nominated Template:Multiple WikiProjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:WikiProject Banner shell

I have nominated Template:WikiProject Banner shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –xeno^talk 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:WikiProject Bannershell

I have nominated Template:WikiProject Bannershell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –xeno^talk 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvescot railway station

With this edit you have introduced two redlinks (one in the infobox, one in the succession box - the redlink in the lede already existed). Please ensure that a valid redirect exists before de-piping links that work. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's an actual redirect, it's preferable to link to the name of the company rather than another name. If you feel a redirect here would be useful, make one, but I can't decide that. --NE2 13:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done a partial revert to this edit. Whilst your removal of the "p." from |pages=p. 53 etc. was correct, the piped link to [[London Midland Region of British Railways|British Railways]] was there to avoid the visual clutter that "London Midland Region of " would cause. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that someone reading would think "oh, I know about British Railways; I don't need to click", but with the full link shown, it's obvious where the link points. "easter egg links" are bad. --NE2 13:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Virtually all articles related to railways in Britain contain links like [[Oxford railway station|Oxford]] or its alternative form {{stnlnk|Oxford}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those should be fine as long as it's clear that it's a station ("the train stops at Oxford"). --NE2 14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check carefully what you have done here and then explain what advantages are gained from such a change? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I forgot to remove the curly braces. --NE2 20:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynton & Barnstaple Railway

Hi, Inotice you have been changing wikilinks to Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, many of which I put in. The reason for the discrepancy is that the formal, legal name of the railway was originally with an ampersand, but the original wiki article used and. Its probably not worth it now, but should the original article have perhaps been renamed instead? i did think of that at the time, but decided to do it through the wikilinks. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style#Article name says that 'and' should be used in article titles. I've actually stopped changing L&B links (there are too many :)) and only fixing major problems. --NE2 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed an improper bypassing of a redirect (see WP:R2D)

Hi, I noticed several of your edits with the summary "Fixed an improper bypassing of a redirect (see WP:R2D) " & thought I'd better check what it meant in case I'm making mistakes. How does changing the link on Wells (Tucker Street) railway station from Cheddar Valley Railway to the red link Cheddar Valley and Yatton Railway help the readers experience?— Rod ^talk 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps in the long run, since the reader won't be directed to the wrong article. Think about it: once Cheddar Valley and Yatton Railway is created, it's hard to find links that are supposed to point there and fix them. --NE2 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Cheddar Valley line already exists about the line from Yatton to Cheddar so it is not the wrong article - therefore no new article will be created about it & if a new article was created I would suggest a merge. If a reader looks at Wells (Tucker Street) railway station or any of the other stations on the line they currently get a link to the rest of the line - following your change it appears that there is not article about the whole line. I do not think the change you made is beneficial. Would it be best to take it to the talk page?— Rod ^talk 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like there should be a redirect from Cheddar Valley and Yatton Railway to Cheddar Valley line. Feel free to create it. --NE2 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the redirect, but it might be worth checking if any of the other changes you are making has the same effect.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also query the "improper bypassing of a redirect" for Yarnton and Chipping Norton Stations? In these cases the article used the correct name of the company "West Midland Railway" although the wikipedia page for this company uses the incorrect title "West Midlands Railway". Obviously the best solution here would be to move the West Midlands Railway page, something I have had on my mind for some time. Bruern Crossing (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. Thing is, this is probably the best way to make sure all such errors are found. Here it was [[West Midlands Railway|West Midland Railway]], but if one were the other way - [[West Midland Railway|West Midlands Railway]] - you'd think it was correct by looking at 'what links here' for West Midland Railway. --NE2 09:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of your edits, for example Holmfirth railway station, are removing valid links (Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway) and replacing them with invalid links (Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway). Shouldn't your process check that the link created exists? I've repaired the links for the Halifax High Level Railway and Halifax and Ovenden Junction Railway that you did earlier. Scillystuff (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking the more suspicious ones, but a few might get lost. As for Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway, should that really redirect to Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, or would Penistone Line be a better target? --NE2 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penistone Line is the modern name for the route from Huddersfield to Sheffield via Penistone and Barnsley, whereas the Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway was formed to build the line between Huddersfield and Penistone to link with the Woodhead Line and then on to Sheffield via a more direct route. A better redirect might be Manchester and Leeds Railway which came between Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway and L&YR, but that article needs work as well. Of course the best answer would be to write the H&SJR article, I've even got the book. :( Scillystuff (talk)

In any case, the best solution is never to pipe the link, since there's no easy way to find such piped links when the article is written. I'll leave it to you to decide if it's better as a redlink or redirected somewhere. --NE2 14:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you dislike piped links, but the very wording of your change "Fixed an improper bypassing of a redirect (see WP:R2D) " contains an implicit assumption that there is a redirect that has been improperly bypassed, which in this case there wasn't. Scillystuff (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a) that's why I later changed it to say "or otherwise cleaned" and (b) the reasoning is the same as "R2D". --NE2 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your recent activity and found a number of cases where your action is removing a potentially valuable link to an article encompassing the subject where no redirect exists; because there is no separate article on the specific subject mentioned within context of the comprehensive article. I question your interpretation this is the intent of the redirect guideline you have cited.Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no redirect, it's either because I didn't realize that there wasn't one or because there shouldn't be one. For the latter case, I found one that was linked A|B, but the only mention of B in A was that B was a predecessor of A, and there was a link to B in A - not a case for a redirect. --NE2 20:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to undo your recent good faith edits where you apparently did not realize there was no redirect.Thewellman (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should create the redirect instead. --NE2 20:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you believe a redirect is the appropriate way to restore linkage, but I don't understand why you didn't do that yourself when you destroyed the existing link.Thewellman (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't realize I was creating a redlink, most likely. --NE2 00:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the recent changes you made at List of constituents of the Great Western Railway as it was leading to redlinks when there was a perfectly good article instead. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I created the redirects now and restored the links to them. --NE2 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit issue

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=332347383&oldid=332347313 --MZMcBride (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. I've seen glitches like that two or three times lately. Some kind of race condition in the software, I think. I'm sure you didn't mean to erase my vote. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've restored my vote. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got an edit conflict notice, but the diff only showed my edit, not Proofreader77's comment, which was not in the top text box. --NE2 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NE2/major cities

Finished! --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. --NE2 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt the celebate

I saw your rapist comments. I do not know Kurt except that he does not have a good reputation.

As an uninvolved editor, what I find lacking is that the people who complained should have clearly listed the complaint. I am sure they know it but they wrongly assume others know it, too. I think that anyone subject to a ban of any sort or a reconfirmation of that restriction should have a clearly written complaint. Kurt says he's been good but those who complain do not confirm or dispute this. Certainly, this is not too hard.

I hope everyone can work together in the new year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Re: [9] (sorry to be nosey, I stumbled onto this). I think the best way to resolve this is to become an admin. I seriously think your chances are good. You're certainly know your way around the wiki better than I and I squeaked through (however, I will admit it was painful, and I'm not sure I'd do it again). Yes, we've locked antlers before; but that was years ago. We both have certainly grown and matured in that time. Cheers and happy new year.Dave (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not recommending a particular course of action here, just sharing my thoughts. You certainly have become easier to work with and that is greatly appreciated. I think you're out of hot water in terms of the RFCs and RFAR affecting your RFA. However, there are a few things that could cause a problem: your comments to Mitch regarding his adminship, and your loss of rollback. This, if disclosed, could easily cause a RFA to fail since it was recently. The decision is yours, but I thought I would give some input. --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have too many skeletons, and have been less involved here recently. --NE2 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, everybody from Jimbo on down has skeletons (including myself), I think the ability to admit them shows maturity. However, I certainly respect not wanting to having those skeletons out for public display in the shark feeding frenzy that RfA has become. cheers. Dave (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how many have the skeletons of a couple dogs and a horse? :) --NE2 12:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Wikipedians do forget over time. If you waited, you might have a much bettter chance. --Rs chen 7754 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention I also have an elephant skeleton? Its former lover never forgets. --NE2 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had a dinosaur skeleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.126.184 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Canada Highway shield

I think it is time to move this image towards {{PD-Canada}}, as dicussed in File_talk:Trans-Canada_Highway_shield.svg. However my preference is to restore the orginal image by commons:User:Makaristos to give a record of him releasing his version to public domain. Do you know the images name on Commons? --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll teach you to fish: [10] (The fish is here.) --NE2 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thanks! I have started the process commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Restore_File:TCHshield.svg--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 704 map

I don't have software that can edit .svg files. Washington State Route 704 is officially open, but it's only 0.75 miles long -- the westernmost 5.25 miles is yet to be built. Would you be willing to edit the Image:Washington State Route 704.svg map you created in order to reflect this? travisl (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like going on a wild goose chase?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Logan_Canyon#Used_as_backdrop_for_Sears_Catalog I could use some help, if you feel like using your expert abilities of knowing what to search for. Unfortunately any search using the words "Logan" and "Sears" yields a lot of crap, and I don't know what else could be used to search for. If you're not interested, I totally understand. Dave (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Union Hall Street (LIRR station) image

I see that it was you who created the article on Union Hall Street (LIRR station). My mistake for not checking the history, but anyway, I just added an image to that article tonight. Let me know what you think of it. ----DanTD (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. While we certainly had our differences, you always had the good of the project in mind. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Texas

I'm sorry, but "this name is crap" is not a good reason to move an article. ~~That was a featured article; please discuss major changes, such as moves, on the talk page first.~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC) (STRUCK mistaken comment at 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

OK, now I see the discussion corresponding to the move. Wouldn't it have been better to just say "see talk" in the edit summary so that editors don't think that you just moved it on a childish whim? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 sorting by importance

A couple months ago you asked about sorting articles by their importance ratings. The new code is up and running, so I thought I would give you a link to it: [11]. The data there is updated daily. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Splat5572/Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list

Hello, I have removed the prod template from this article, as proposed deletion may only be used in the mainspace. Please list this user subpage at Miscellany for Deletion instead. (WP:MFD) Hope this helps! --Taelus (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why then does Category:Proposed deletion as of 25 January 2010 say "articles and user pages"? --NE2 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm and excellent point. I just noticed the template threw up a big red error message, I will have a quick look into this. My apologies if I messed up, if not I will try clarify the category. --Taelus (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using my sandbox, trying to apply a proposed deletion template flags up a warning saying only to use them in the article space, so MfD is the place to go. Hopefully I can find a way to fix the category oddity, thanks for your help. --Taelus (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change here. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Google Map Links in SEPTA articles

I've been working to bring additional useful info to the SEPTA articles (particularly the Market-Frankfort line), and noted in the recent revision history that someone added an external link to a Google map image of the line; but also saw that it was quickly removed as being spam. Looking at the link itself via the diff page, it looks like a perfectly reasonable addition to the article, and i can't understand why it was marked as spam in the first place. Granted, the user that added it seemed to have issues with consensus building and personal attacks; but the intent was still Good Faith. I'm not suggesting any kind of removal of their ban (that's not my fight, they can earn it themselves if they're interested); but i would support the re-addition of the google map link. I would like to put it back; but i'm not going to stick my nose out to add good data if the only thing it will get me is a cauliflower schnoz. Would you consider taking a look at the link itself and allow me to add it back to the MFSL page? If not, would you be willing to discuss your reasoning why? Hiroe (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? It's just a line drawn on the map, with a fanciful "Bustleton Extension". The official SEPTA map is better than this. --NE2 04:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point? Well, the official SEPTA map, while very nice, does not in any way show how it fits into the very city it runs through. That's the specific point of the Google map, which shows not only the line, but how it follows the route of specific roads within the city. (If there's some official SEPTA map that shows the surroundings the same way the Google one does, i'd love to know about it.) Hiroe (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought, would you be willing to accept inclusion of *both* maps? They each have their specific advantages. Hiroe (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I've seen a SEPTA system map that also shows bus routes; did they get rid of it?

You seem to be ignoring the "Bustleton Extension", which the creator added to the end of the actual line.

And why Google? Why not another map provider? Presumably other map services allow this sort of drawing lines - and OpenStreetMap goes a bit further, with the ability to create a relation to group the line and stations (NYC example; nobody's done this yet for Philly). --NE2 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit some annoyance over the use of the same color for the "Bustleton Extension" as the main route; but the primary advantages that i see for use of this are threefold: First, the work is already done here; Second, Google isn't going anywhere. (Can we say that about OpenStreetMap?); and Third, Google is extraordinarily helpful in finding local resources and their locations in relationship to transit. (Need to know how many indian restaurants are in a given area? Google can do that. Granted, that doesn't quite come under encyclopedic content; but it does strike me as a useful addition.)

But point taken. I'll investigate the options a little further as my time allows, and work out the best solution to this. I know Google does allow user-generated data maps to group points-of-interest (such as stations); i'm not currently familiar enough with OpenStreetMap to know what it can and can't do. As for the Official SEPTA map with greater detail, i too recall it; but searching their website did not yield it. I do know that SEPTA has moved for integration with Google transit; perhaps that can be spun into something useful. Hiroe (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming State Highways

Hello NE2, I noticed that on Wyoming Highway 217 and Wyoming Highway 218 someone added a section that these highways were decommissioned in Febuary 2009, but cites no sources. I checked aaroads.com but was unable to verify. Yahoo Maps and Google Maps still show the highways. I've seen that you've made some edits to these articles and was wondering if this information is correct. Thanks, Ngs61 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The road's still there, so it hasn't been "decommissioned" :) It may have been removed from the state highway system. http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Planning/Reference%20Marker%20Book.pdf is from 2004 and http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Traffic/traffic%20data/VMB08-Rout37-300.pdf is from 2008, so they don't help. Google's street view shows it on the exit signs on I-80. (The maps themselves are essentially useless for whether a numbered highway exists.) I'd remove it and ask for a source in the edit summary. --NE2 08:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking your time to look into this, I will make necessary changes asap.

Once again, thanks! Ngs61 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:ELG

Have you seen the debates on there lately? --Rs chen 7754 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days OpenStreetMap will be able to auto-generate exit lists, and we'll embed those somehow. Until then we're making tissue paper artwork in pre-Katrina New Orleans. --NE2 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ventura Freeway

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ventura Freeway. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again about the Ventura Freeway—could you take a look at Talk:California State Route 134 for discussion about a possible merge? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not enough care present. --NE2 03:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject U.S. Roads in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Roads for a Signpost article to be published in early May. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have some juicy tidbits if I weren't semi-retired

--NE2 02:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic question

We have five roads coming together in Northern Virginia into a network known as Seven Corners, defined in Wikipedia as a place article right now. I would like to be able to define the "grid" somehow, but don't have the vocabulary to do this. I've tried to lay the road out. It's going to get real messy and incomprehensible, real quick, I can see that.

I've tried to get help on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Traffic_-_Seven_Corners and the main help I've had so far, besides that I should shut up and go away, is to contact you! If you know of an example or two online that I could look at, that would be helpful. Also, seven corners is probably described someplace. Be neat if that were online. Maybe :).

Also, I would appreciate it if you could weigh in on the Project Page. Traffic engineering should probably come under some existing Project. If created now, it should probably include Roads and Streets. Support for this seems weak, to say the least. But ignoring it seems ignorant or lazy. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as part of USRD. Expecting to get bitch-slapped in 3, 2, 1... --NE2 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Highways appears to include traffic. I have left a message there, giving up on the other Projects which aren't interested in traffic messing up their nice roads! :) Student7 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 47

Would you consider nominating this article for A-Class? It would probably be eligible. --P C B 16:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do it yourself. I don't care about article classifications. --NE2 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USRD A-class requirements show that only the major contributor may nominate. You are that user. --P C B 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR, brother. Read and learn. --NE2 01:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 USRD newsletter


Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup This month in USRD history	Features US Roads Portal celebrates April Fool's Day Portal selected article and photo	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q89 Redirect

I just came upon this redirect today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q89_%28New_York_City_bus%29&redirect=no

Why does the Q89 (first version) redirect to Madison and 5 Av's buses? Just because it was ran by the Fifth Avenue Coach Company does not mean it ran on 5th Avenue itself, which is what the article is about. Could you please either delete the redirect, or provide justification for its existence? Train2104 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about the FACCo's 15 and 16. Even though it didn't use Fifth Avenue, the 16 was a short-turn variant of the 15, which did, so I mentioned it there. Unfortunately since then a new Q89 has been created, so the redirect is misleading. I'd change it to redirect to the row of the Queens list. --NE2 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canada heritage railways

You created this template, but it is only used in one article. Do you intend to expand its use, or is it not required? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. It could be added to the articles if you wish to. --NE2 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

653

I'm not sure to what you are referring. Truck 653 is a real route. I may not have the street names correct, and I'll refer to my sources to see if I can get some better information. If you're from the area and the route is not signed well, I wouldn't be surprised. PennDot is notorious. Truck 148 in McKeesport was barely signed for decades before they finally got around to improving it. Mr. Vitale (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect. It comes directly from PennDot. The map of their Somerset County maintenance is at the bottom of the 653 page. I updated the street names based upon their data. Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

981 (New Jersey bus) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 981 (New Jersey bus). Since you had some involvement with the 973 (New Jersey bus) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PA 653 Truck

I went back and revised the information about the truck route. I could not find a source about why the old Coxes Creek bridge was bypassed, I took out the notation that it was narrow. I also corrected the mileage and verified the name of the route. It does in fact follow Water Level Road according to the PennDOT map of Somerset County. I could not determine whether the other road was Gebhardt or Garrett so i noted it was called State Route 3019, which the PennDOT map labels it as. Dough 48 72 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trotting Course Lane (LIRR station)?

User:Oknazevad and I would like to know where you have evidence of the existance of the former Trotting Course Lane (LIRR station) on the LIRR Atlantic Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I got it from here, though I wouldn't exactly call that a great source. There may be some confusion with Woodhaven/Woodville. --NE2 13:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing in LIRR stations template

I removed the listing for Penn Station and Long Island City (both variants) from {{LIRR stations}}. Looking at the LIRR system and its operations, there is no station from which the only possible destinations are Penn and LIC, only. For Mainline stations west of Jamaica, Penn Station is used. Feel free to re-add them if they break any stations, but please tell me what stations they broke. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Doesn't Woodside, for example, have trains to both? --NE2 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article for Woodside says Penn Station for the western side of the box...—Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But should it? It's been a while since I looked at the LIRR. --NE2 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trackage-wise, yes. But service-wise, no. So which should we follow? —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where do westbound trains that stop at Hunterspoint Avenue stop west of Jamaica? --NE2 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstop, Jamaica to Hunterspoint. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I guess they have to stick to the inner tracks and are thus forced to skip the stations. --NE2 03:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2010 USRD newsletter


Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief	Features Infobox road upgrade Editing needed near bottom of leaderboard Junction list updates	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn

I have nominated List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. 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. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Skyway

As there is a discussion regarding how to define the Pulaski Skyway in light of contradictory information and opinions your input would be appreciated Djflem (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fall 2010 USRD newsletter


Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Bot automates graphics creation, saves work Featured Article, eh? Reviews needed at ACR	State and national updates Project reports for Delaware Maryland Michigan Minnesota
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your train map

Hey, I know you have helped me identify which rail company owns a line, and if its a sub line, etc before. Can you identify the line paralleling Washington State Route 22? Thanks! --Admrboltz (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yakima Valley Subdivision (SP&S Junction near Kennewick to Ellensburg) --NE2 22:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, though do you have the cite to go w/ it? --Admrboltz (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BNSF Railway Northwest Division Timetable No. 3 in effect at 0700 Pacific Continental Time Wednesday April 26, 2006 --NE2 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 168

Hey, quick question. On Washington State Route 168 you made the map. I am curious, does the GIS data show a path for 168, or was the map speculative? --Admrboltz (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, speculative (I think I based it on terrain). --NE2 04:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just looked at WSDOT's GIS page, and it doesn't look like its on there. Thanks. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Locating engineer

The article Locating engineer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, since 2008, micro stub.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Seaboard System logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seaboard System logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County Expressway System

Thanks for your support for keeping this page. I don't think the person deleting it had searched (using the Find or Search feature) the master plan we both cited, informally called County Expressway Plan. The expression Expressway System is used exactly 31 times (searched/found by using Adobe Acrobat Reader after downloading), and that's just in the main document (without attachments). Everyone here involved with these roads (employees, politicians and advocates) uses the term expressway system.

There was a complaint about OR (I guess, Original Research) and he did not say what he was referring to. However, what I put up is extensively documented by meeting agendas, staff reports, etc. -- I kept all. I cited the most important ones of which I also gave a link to a scanned copy. I would think that viewing these roads today, in person, is plenty of proof that all bicycle prohibitions have been repealed, as all bicycle prohibitory signs have been removed and none will be seen today. Similarly, you can see that only two of these roads today still have pedestrian prohibitions. There is no documentation that states that besides my own writing. You have to just go along these roads and see that as proof -- or read through over a dozen meeting agendas and minutes of those meetings, all extremely time consuming and boring.

If the page is not re-instated on Wikipedia, I plan to recreate most of that page onto the website of the Modern Transit Society. If there is a translator program that converts Wikipedia language to HTML, please let me know. Here is the main Expressway page I had created, but it is not as easy to understand or pretty to look at as is Wikipedia format.

I find it strange how easily a page is deleted from Wikipedia, by maybe 3 counted votes of people doing perfunctory viewings, and all the history that has never been published before in one place on the topic, as titled, is totally gone. Also, two Keep posts that were dismissed were a result of my blog posting and email that this Wikipedia page may be deleted. These two also wrote an email to me stating they posted Keep and I know these people: one is a traffic engineer in San Jose, the other is a member of the Modern Transit Society, of which I'm vice-president. Despite the claim by the computer that the latter never did editing, he did extensive editing in a prior year but his entire contribution was deleted because the entire page was deleted. He has completely given up on editing Wikipedia, and recommended to me that I do the same. That's something I am considering.

It's also strange that all the photos were deleted. These give information all by themselves. No OR can be claimed against photos, unless all photos that are taken by contributors are considered OR. Well, in that case, you will simply eliminate a huge amount of information from Wikipedia because, for example, nobody else has taken photos of bike/pedestrian facilities along the expressways besides me, to my knowledge. If there is any suspicion the photos may be faked, all I can do is say, "The locations are as stated in WikiMedia, see for yourself." Now, these are all orphaned. Thanks again--AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just read in [WP:OI] that images (photos included) by contributors are not considered OR and that statements do not have to have citations, but must be citable (being able to supply the citation if needed). In that case, I have no idea why OR was stated as a reason for deletion. Everything is citable either by going along the roads and seeing with own eyes, or in the city and county meeting agendas/minutes, and I cited others (laws, two articles, the County Expressway Plan.). --AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winter 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter

Departments

Features

State and national updates

Project reports for

CA
MI
MN
NE

NJ
UT
WA

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—

JCbot (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?

Can you tell me what this is? It seems to be your page, but after completing East Omaha Bridge I want to do an article on Omaha Bridge and Terminal Railway too. • Freechildtalk 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1910s-20s the Interstate Commerce Commission put together valuations of all common carriers. This is an excerpt from it. You may be able to find the complete document (46 Val. Rep. 1) at a university library. --NE2 06:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Route 12

Another editor has asked that New Brunswick Route 12 be deleted because it is a disambiguation page which only has red links. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stupid... --NE2 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2011

Volume 4, Issue 2 • Spring 2011 • About the Newsletter

Departments

Features

State and national updates

Project reports for

CA
DE

MD
MI

PA

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Rschen7754bot (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of U.S. Route 129 (Kentucky)

A tag has been placed on U.S. Route 129 (Kentucky), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

U.S. Route 129 does not exist in Kentucky, nor is Kentucky even mentioned in U.S. Route 129

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. "Pepper " 13:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CTB minutes/01-1959-01

Template:CTB minutes/01-1959-01 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of I-73/74 North–South Corridor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I-73/74 North–South Corridor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-73/74 North–South Corridor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alberta Highway 16 (Trans-Canada).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alberta Highway 16 (Trans-Canada).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:USRD essay

Template:USRD essay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the bloody thing, and I don't need spam about it. --NE2 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's customary to notify substantive editors of something that said something has been nominated for deletion. It's not spam, it's part of the deletion process. Your user talk page is not your private fiefdom; it exists for providing editing-related notices and discussion space for editing related issues. You are free to delete or archive any of your user talk page notices you do not find interesting, but berating other editors for simply following procedure and making perfectly normal use of your talk page is incivil and worse. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the details, you'd see that I wasn't a substantive editor. --NE2 10:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is magically so important that it warrants multiple discussions on two user talk pages. If I got mad every time someone left me a routine notice on my talk page that I wasn't interested in, I would have to have anger management therapy by now. "Don't sweat the small stuff." — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The fact that an unusually high percentage of messages on your talk page are deletion notices probably has something to do with it. That fact is also a strong indication that you need to review how you're going about things. Why are people trying to delete your stuff, and stuff you are involved with? I would think that would be a much more pressing concern (either for you or the US Roads project you spend a lot of time on) than complaining about receiving courtesy notices of the deletion discussions. This does not require a reply. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the messages on my talk page are deletion notifications because I no longer edit this hellhole. --NE2 11:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except you are editing by reply to me. Hmm, I think you may want to either remove your account (unless you sometimes like to do minor edits like typo corrections) or at least get into the "My preferences" menu and turn off notifications that are e-mailed to you when someone edits your userpage, if your intent is to not be bothered by Wikipedia notices. It's in the first tab, "User profile". You can also just remove your e-mail address from there, so you won't ever get any kind of WP e-mail. Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can also archive your talk page again, and replace it with {{Retired}} to dissuade people from leaving you notices. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 4, Issue 3 • Fall 2011 • About the Newsletter

Departments

Features

State and national updates

Project reports for

CA
MD

MI
PA

VA
TX

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—JCbot (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Second Street Bridge

The article Second Street Bridge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only one link has an article, so the others should be deleted, leaving no need for a DAB page.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:VA Interstate Route

A tag has been placed on Template:VA Interstate Route requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012


Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 22:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link in article 'Interstate 215 (California)'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Interstate 215 (California)', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/truckmap/truck-route-list.xls

You added this in February 2008.
I tried to load this link on 11 March, 13 March, 15 March, 31 March and today, but it never worked.
I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/truckmap/truck-route-list.xlsx --NE2 02:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Virginia state highways

A tag has been placed on Template:Virginia state highways requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forest Service Byways

Category:Forest Service Byways, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vector/Monobook

Did you change to Vector, save, then back to Monobook and save? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --NE2 13:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing, but it had no effect. I cannot figure out what is going on. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_North_Dakota_railroads

You reverted this why? --NE2 04:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tedickey (talk | contribs) reverted five revisions by one editor in one sweep without explaining why. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Research Survey

Hello NE2,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We are creating a tool, called wikiFeed, that will help Wikipedia editors make connections between content from Twitter or RSS news feeds and Wikipedia articles. We are currently gathering data which will help us in the development process and would love to learn about how you consume news content and how it relates to your Wikipedia editing. If you would like to help, follow this link to complete a brief survey. Your feedback will help us create a better tool.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. Thanks for your time! FifthCrow (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers (sigh)

Do you happen to have the page numbers for references 21 and 31 on California State Route 57? Apparently FAC needs it. Thanks. --Rs chen 7754 23:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. --NE2 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Code of Operating Rules

The cleanup tag you added to General Code of Operating Rules was apparently incorrectly formatted (missing a reason field) and appeared as a red error in the article; the tag has been removed. If you would like to re-add it, would you please ensure it is correctly formatted. FYI, the list of railroads that follow GCOR is included in the GCOR links in the External links section. Perhaps a different tag (other than unreferenced) is appropriate

The introductory statement about Class I's west of the Mississippi has been modified, per you comment on the article's talk page.

Thanks for your contributions. Happy editing. Truthanado (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your question ... Based on my railroad experience and the list of railroads in the GCOR rules, the revised wording seems correct. Would you like to propose alternative wording? Truthanado (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Start River Line box

Template:Start River Line box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Waccamaw Coast Line Railroad

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Waccamaw Coast Line Railroad requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sk8terguy27 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Waccamaw Coast Line Railroad

Hi NE2, you recently removed a deletion tag from Waccamaw Coast Line Railroad. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Waccamaw Coast Line Railroad. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Waccamaw Coast Line Railroad, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alberta Highway 1 (Trans-Canada).png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alberta Highway 1 (Trans-Canada).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request your assistance in deleting a redirect for the Manitou Incline

Hi there, I see you've been active on the Pikes Peak Cog Railway site. I've built a seperate Manitou Incline page in my sandbox, but can't create 'Manitou Incline' because a redirect already exists and I'm not an admin. I used to be active on WP, but I've been away for a while and I'm a bit rusty. Please assist if you can. thanks. Ahodges7 ^talk 23:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin either. Sorry. --NE2 00:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks Ahodges7 ^talk 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:PDFlink

Template:PDFlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lexein (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Route

This is a courtesy notice that Ridge Route has been nominated at WP:HWY/ACR for discussion and collaboration on how to bring it in line with current expectations of a Featured Article. Your participation would be appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 15:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. I no longer jump through hoops. --NE2 15:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BNSF Railway logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BNSF Railway logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East Chester Township, New Jersey listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect East Chester Township, New Jersey. Since you had some involvement with the East Chester Township, New Jersey redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tinton5 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:CSX logo (1981).png)

Thanks for uploading File:CSX logo (1981).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 16 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Platteville, Colorado page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Blame whoever put the same reference in an unused infobox parameter. --NE2 03:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 34 in Colorado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson Lake State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former named state highways in Oregon

Category:Former named state highways in Oregon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio state route redirects

Hey, I've deprodded Ohio State Route 156, Ohio State Route 326 and Ohio State Route 596. I don't doubt your rationales are accurate, but WP:PROD is pretty clear that it doesn't apply to redirects (per the third para of the lede). I would've procedurally nominated them at RfD but wasn't sure if they'd be best nominated individually or as a group, so decided to leave it to you since you know more about the subject than I do. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 470 in West Virginia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interstate 470 in West Virginia. Since you had some involvement with the Interstate 470 in West Virginia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Admr Boltz 16:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 470 in Ohio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interstate 470 in Ohio. Since you had some involvement with the Interstate 470 in Ohio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Admr Boltz 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Maryland all-time list

Thank you for creating this. If there are questions or comments that require a back-and-forth, should they be placed on the list page or should they be started on the presently uncreated talk page? V C

Since I'm still in the middle of creating it, you should probably put them on the talk page. --NE2 19:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Maryland Route 666

Hello NE2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maryland Route 666, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing county names

What's with the elimination of county-specific names of county roads related to Florida State Roads? I can understand you fixing them in links, but not headers. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "county-specific names" but concatenations that are rarely used in reality. --NE2 13:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:SR 290

It is standard practice across USRD to include both current and former routes in article browses. Florida's articles should be fixed to also have former routes in article browses. Dough 48 72 01:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, are you aware just how many former state roads there are? --NE2 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but that doesn't matter. We should still go through and fix the articles. Most of the Florida articles are in bad shape anyway and need to be rewritten. Dough 48 72 03:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First we'd need a list of all the former routes. I don't have one. --NE2 04:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I have heard of this standard practice. Can you point us to where this standard practice is written? V C 04:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an official practice but a de facto practice that is used in several states. Dough 48 72 04:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. De facto practice in Florida seems to have been not to list them. --NE2 05:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Florida State Road 434 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|road=Kennedy Boulevard ([[County Road 438A (Orange County, Florida|CR 438A]] east) / All American Boulevard

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to U.S. Route 19 in Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florida State Road 434, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seminole State College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Secondary Highway 235

Normally, Montana secondary highways aren't considered notable enough for their own articles, and at a glance (at least from looking at the superstub article), it doesn't seem this one is any different. Therefore, I've just restored the redirect for now. T C N7JM 01:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted. The redirect is misleading, since current S-235 has nothing to do with MT 81. --NE2 07:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's still not notable enough for its own article...the only plausible thing to do would be to redirect it to its former routing, but that just redirects back to MT 81. Either that or a set index might work in this situation. T C N7JM 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could be part of a list article. If you're not willing to do that now, let it be. --NE2 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State Road 471

Okay, I get that the Hernando County Property Appraiser might not have SR 471 on their maps, but are you that sure about Pasco? On other maps of both counties I've seen that road straddle their borders with Polk County. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how precise it is, but the Sumter County PA shows SR 471 east of the (blue) county line (the yellow line is the right-of-way line east of the highway). There's even an S-curve on SR 471 just north of the Little Withlacoochee River where the Sumter-Hernando line leaves the section line for the river. The Pasco PA has a rather lacking interface, but as best as I can tell they too have the county line west of SR 471. This deed (not sure if the link will work) refers in several places to "the East line of SECTION * and West right-of-way line of State Road No. 471", meaning that the SR 471 ROW is entirely east of the section line (which is the county line). Finally, here's an example "certified corner record" that shows that the SR 471 centerline is 68 feet east of the section/county line (this one is just south of the Withlacoochee River, where most maps show SR 471 right along the county line). --NE2 15:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning the article name for Broadway

Because you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, or related to the subject, please see RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Four Corners, Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US 90 Truck in Lake City, FL

This was the 90t US 90 Truck Route in lake City I referred to. Obviously the website is out of date, so when were trucks banned on SR 10A? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was ever correct. I can't locate where the photo he has there was taken, but it makes no sense as a reference to SR 10A. Can you figure out where that sign assembly could make sense right on the sidewalk next to a building? --NE2 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alachua CR 25A in Micanopy

Zoom in on Micanopy, and you'll see that CR 25A is in the source, at least for that segment. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see it there. However, it's not in the GIS data or on signs, so it may be a former route. --NE2 06:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly considered the possibility of a former route or even a hidden one. But it was there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 98 in Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Joseph Cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comments brought to WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 41 in Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sweetwater, FL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: County Road 78A (Lee County, Florida)

Hello NE2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of County Road 78A (Lee County, Florida), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G8: "redirects to invalid targets" --NE2 00:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roads and Transit

I fixed it up a bit, and removed your NN tag. If you stil think it's rotten, please send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

Thanks for identifying the missing town of Glen St. Mary on the List of municipalities in Florida. I don't know how that slipped by, since it was included on the map and it wasn't recently incorporated. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've gone through all from the 2010 Census and the rest are all good. --NE2 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Redlink Removal

Oops, sorry. I didn't mean to do that. SciGal (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State Road 39 and other hidden SRs along US 301

I take it you took a drive to Dade City lately, since you updated the info on Florida State Road 39, and found the signs for that route aren't there anymore. I still have yet to do so myself. Did you see anything involving Alt CR 35, while you were there? I still haven't found any maps about former SR 43 extending along Harney Road yet, but I did drive to Downtown Tampa library, and found something interesting; It was a 1961 map that contained a former segment of SR 41 along Harney southwest of US 301! Plus, a 1961 topographical map on Historic Aerials Online contains that section of Fowler Avenue east of US 301 as being part of SR 582. Either way, I'm not going to stop looking for all the info that made me write the stuff I wrote. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found that on Google Street View (link added to the image description page).

SR 41 and SR 43 are separate numbers because they didn't connect back in 1945. SR 43 ended at US 92 where it does now, but SR 41 began at Harney and US 92. That layout can be seen here (no numbers shown).

I have a print copy of the 1973-1975 FDOT Hillsborough County map that shows SR 41 already gone from Harney, with its south end at SR 43's then-new north end in Thonotosassa.

PS: is this the map you saw? --NE2 16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar to the one at UF, but this was five years newer. I found it at the John F. Germany Branch of the Hillsborough Public Library. I also found a map there from 1999 which indicated SR 43 ended north of US 92 (First American Real Estate Solutions; Map #208B). The library also suggested I go to the Hillsborough Planning Commission on Kennedy Boulevard, but it was fairly late in the afternoon when I found the place, and I didn't feel like going to another parking garage at the time, so I put off the visit there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with current termini of unsigned state roads, the agency that maintains those roads is the best source. Everything I've seen from FDOT indicates that the changeover is now at or near US 92. Historically, it was at Thonotosassa for a while.

Have you been on the new Alexander Street extension north of Plant City? Any idea what it's signed as - SR/CR 39A, SR 39 Truck? --NE2 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, everything I know about any of the child routes of SR 39, has only been from maps. But as far as info on SR 43, past and present, I'll take whatever info I can get. -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - This Google Street View shows it as SR 39A. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the part south of I-4. It's recently been extended north: [12] [13] --NE2 19:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florida State Road 60, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sand Key (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panhandle County Roads

Regarding your reversion of my two edits to Bay County Road 22, and the southern Calhoun County Road 73B; The FDOT map shows Bay CR 22 running west of the current western terminus along the same street. Is that a reason not to believe that this was a former segment of SR 22? If so, then we can just rewrite it as a county extension, rather than an actual former SR segment. As for CR 73B, if you look beyond that normally less than reliable overhead shot, you should be able to see a street name sign reading "State Highway 73B." That erroneous name should be enough of an indication of the road's status as an official county road. From what I've seen, they don't always have normal MUTCD-compliant CR markers in that part of the state. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-county road map doesn't explicitly label it as SR 22. It probably was SR 22, but needs a source.

As for CR 73B, I can't make out what the street sign says. (And even if it does say SR 73B, that doesn't automatically make it CR 73B now.) --NE2 00:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of county roads in Taylor County, Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{|class="wikitable"
|Foley Road; Old [{Dixie Highway]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of county roads in Martin County, Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|former [[Florida State Road A1A|SR A1A]]<ref name="1953-57">[http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015629/00001/1x?vo=32 General Highway Map, Martin County, August 1953,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Florida State Road 200 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Withlacoochee River

Florida State Road 48 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Withlacoochee River

List of county roads in Escambia County, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Florida State Road 4A

List of county roads in Okaloosa County, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Florida State Road 4A

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of movable bridges in Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[17th Street Causeway]], [[SR A1A (FL)|SR A1A]] over [[Stranahan River]]] (AIWW), [[Fort Lauderdale, FL|Fort Lauderdale]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Florida State Road 528 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{FLint|exit
|road={{jct|state=FL|FLTP||US|17|US|92|US|441|name4=[[Orange Blossom Trail]] / [{SR 500 (FL)|]] / [{SR 600 (FL)|]]}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Florida State Road 585 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

SR 585 southern terminus is at [[Florida State Road 60|SR 60]. Interstate 4 is the next major intersection of SR 585 then it

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Miami-Dade County, Florida may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

836]] (Dolphin Expressway) / [[File:I-395.svg|25px]] [[Interstate 395 (Florida)|Interstate 395]]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Florida State Road 10 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to|US|90|dir1=east|name1=[[Beach Boulevard (Jacksonville)|Beach Boulevard]]|road=[[Hart Bridge]] ([[U.S. Route 1 Alternate (Jacksonville, Florida)|US 1 Alt.]] / [[SR 228 (FL)|SR 228]]|city1=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of movable bridges in Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to New River (Florida) and Hillsborough River

List of state roads in Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Florida State Road 4A

U.S. Route 92 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hillsborough River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 13 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Interstate 10 in Florida page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florida State Road 406, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titusville Historic District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Please change your edit summary to something that is less inflammatory. --Rs chen 7754 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inflammatory. Anyway, I just finished. --NE2 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:NE2 insulting a user using WP:AWB. Thank you. Rs chen 7754 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the edit summaries might be uncivil, so you need to stop naming other editors in your summaries. While it isn't the greatest incivility around here, it is still gratuitous. Adding their name doesn't improve the article, doesn't make it easier to do your work, but it does seem to piss off a few people. If only for that, stop please. This way we don't have to debate a block at ANI next time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, nobody cares if you piss people off by making an error on 100 articles and not fixing it, but don't piss off people who are going to complain on the noticeboard. --NE2 01:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means there is a right way and a wrong way to get someone to fix their own errors. Shaming them in an edit summary is the wrong way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the right way? Asking didn't work, and I don't run to mommy every time someone pisses me off. If I did there would probably be ten threads on Imzadi1979 already. --NE2 01:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the actual changes (and as an admin, it isn't my job to decide content issues anyway), but if it is a difference of opinion about style, format, content, etc. then WP:DRN. Then you get a more formal opinion on it that you can rely on in the future. If they are being sloppy and just making mistakes, or ignoring previous decisions at DRN, or otherwise doing something in bad faith, then WP:ANI is the right place. It isn't running to mommy (I'm not a mommy...), it is about finding a problem, and handling in a professional and proper way to insure the problem isn't repeated 100 times. I might be an admin, but 99% of what I do doesn't use admin tools, so for all intent and purposes, I'm just a regular editor like you, helping, and showing the proper way to deal with a problem. It isn't tattling, I'm not your boss nor is any admin, it is simply peer review. If you can, talk to him calmly. If you can't, stay calm and polite and use the boards, get an opinion and be willing to live with it, even if you disagree. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an obvious error: [14] User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 5#WTF? --NE2 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is one edit, and you weren't exactly calm, and a bit pissy. That is fine, but you don't influence others to change that way, and invite them to do nothing, just to antagonize you. If you are talking about actually 100 edits (a pattern) that is different than one off sloppy issues. For instance, if someone is constantly misusing a tool, they can be topic banned from using it. If it is just one off errors every couple of weeks, well, that is just an annoyance that we don't do much about, you just fix it. Shaming them in the summary, however, is not acceptable. It isn't improving anything, it is just "poking" the person to piss them off by pointing out their errors. It is a bit petty, to be frank. I've given you the information, what you do with it is up to you. I work hard to keep people from getting blocked, but ultimately, it's up to you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of an automated run that did the same thing to 100 articles. --NE2 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a mistake and he won't fix it, you can always notify him with the ANI template, drop a note at ANI asking "Please get this user to repair the 100 article they broke with their automated tools." and leave it alone. No need to get snippy, opinionated or say anything else. If he makes a habit of it, the community is fully capable of dealing with it. If it is a one time mistake, same thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I-70 in Missouri

Still not updated… Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? --NE2 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Florida State Road 704 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norton Museum

Florida State Road 706 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alternate A1A

Florida State Road 786 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alternate A1A

Florida State Road 850 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alternate A1A

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alachua CR 25A in Micanopy revisited

Found some historical markers noting Alachua County Road 25A in Micanopy (http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/historic/historic_commission/historical_markers/micanopytext.htm), and here's antoher one (http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/historic/historic_commission/historical_markers/bartramtext.htm). Now I just haver to find more proof of Alachua CR 26A in Newberry being an old segment of SR 26. Historic Aerials Online only seems to go as far back as 1970, but honestly what other reason would the route have that designation? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with CR 25A is that CR 234 was moved to bypass Micanopy after SR 25A became CR 25A. So there's no defined north end of CR 25A. It certainly exists and is unsigned.

Now for CR 26A:

1936-1952 map (current SR 26 exists)
ca. 1940 map (pre-1945 SR 14 only uses CR 26A east of CR 235)
1949 aerial (current SR 26 exists but the curving cutoff at CR 26A and CR 235 is visible)

--NE2 19:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Justin Francis (American football) may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Justin Francis''' (born February 2, 1989 in [[Opa-locka, [[Florida), is an [[American football]] [[Defensive end]] for the [[New England Patriots]] of the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits and move of Land O' Lakes Florida to Land o' Lakes Florida

Thanks for your many efforts to make Wikipedia better! You are correct that the O in Land O' Lakes Florida comes from the word "of", which is normally not capitalized in titles. However, the name of a town is not a title, it is it's name and they are entitled to spell it as they wish. They clearly wish the the name to Land O' Lakes with a capital O, as it is spelled that way in every instance (except now, Wikipedia). I cannot find one instance in which the area is referred to as Land o' Lakes with a lower case "o". This should be moved back to "Land O' Lakes". Here is a reference to the origin of the name.^[1] There are more places that you can look to corroborate the correct spelling with the capital "O". Thanks for your efforts.Jacona (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an unincorporated community, it has no 'correct' capitalization outside of English grammar. MOS:CT seems to be the applicable guideline. --NE2 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I guess that only applies to compositions. I had read that as being about titles that are composed of several words. I've brought it up here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Place names. --NE2 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Everglades, Florida

I thought Little Everglades was some kind of defunct farming community, kind of like Oregon, Suffolk County, New York, which was more or less swallowed up by Mattituck, New York and Peconic, New York. Nevertheless it is the general area where the interchanges between the Florida's Turnpike, U.S. Route 27 in Florida, and Florida State Road 19 can be found. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the topo - it's merely a small swamp. Perhaps it's worth mentioning (in SR 19; US 27 goes over the hills to the south), but not as a community name (Little Everglades, Florida). --NE2 17:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as a community name, it's pure crap. Got'cha. I wish there were a reasonable substitute, though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that part of US 27 is too new to have a name associated with its intersections. --NE2 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia County School District and Columbia County High School address discrepancy

Can you make sense of the 372 W. Duval vs. 528 W. Duval given for historic high school building (which is supposed to house the school district) and the 372 address given? Nationa Register Listing here. If the numbers were close together I could see it being the same place but the difference from 372 to 528 would seem to me to indicate a different block? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea. --NE2 19:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State Roads in Florida

I'm pretty sure "State Roads" is correct capitalisation here, as it's referring to the Florida State Roads. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State Road 5 is a state road. Yellowstone National Park is a national park (see list of national parks of the United States). --NE2 06:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger and NE2: actually, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. According to [15] and [16], the name of the system would be "Florida State Highway System" (if we follow the practice of prefacing road-related items with the state name). I tend to agree that in a generic sense, "State Road 5 is a 'state road'". At least for the title of the article on system, and the link that appears in the bottom of the infoboxes, it should follow the official name, caps and all, right? Imzadi 1979 → 08:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Go figure it out if you must. --NE2 08:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state roads in Florida, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Edgewater, FL, Newport, FL and Hopewell, FL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misusing sources? WTF?

How the hell is showing the proposed Veterans Expressway/Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway and the connection to the change in designation of SR 616 from SR 589 misusing sources? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source being used is a self-published source based on this. However, the maps and many of the images provided by the site are not created by the webmaster but by a legitimate transit authority. Link to the image of those maps, but reference the maps themselves rather than the website. Bear in mind however that this is a separate issue from whether the fact being attributed to the source is actually in the source or not, which I haven't verified nor do I have the local knowledge to do so. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the problem. The problem is that he's taking a proposal to build a highway and assuming that it would have involved a route number change. --NE2 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does your source show that SR 589 would have been rerouted? (It doesn't.) --NE2 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other reason would there be for the change? In the meantime, let me ask you something else; Do you remember any old road maps indicating that the Crosstown Expressway was already part of SR 589? Because this is the only possible way I could think of to link the two sections. One thing that may solve this would be an exact year for the establishment of 616 as a state route, because the FDOT links have nothing on this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in original research. I've never seen anything indicating that Crosstown or its spur to the airport was SR 589.

SR 616 was created after 1992, long after any connection to the Crosstown was cancelled. My guess is that FDOT decided to assign SR 589 only to the Veterans, perhaps so people leaving the airport wouldn't have trouble finding the right road. [17] obviously isn't a reliable source, but it claims the same thing. --NE2 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NE2. You have new messages at Benhen1997's talk page.
Message added 03:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ben^Yes? 03:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are changing Template:Update section without any good reason, as the template works perfectly. If you disagree with its function, you must obtain consensus on the talk page first. Please read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrecking the template without any good reason. You've also made three reverts, while I seem to have made only one. --NE2 10:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 3, just like me, which is not in violation of any policy. You, however, violate WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. The first two were not reverts. --NE2 10:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check again: [18], [19], and [20]. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What old version did I revert to, huh? --NE2 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I reverted to once and twice. --NE2 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forget [21]. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What previous version was a redirect? --NE2 04:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a revert from the previous version, doesn't make a difference to what. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. --NE2 09:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very stubborn person. It was not a pleasure to have met you here on Wikipedia. Engaging in discussion and honoring WP:BRD would be a good start toward becoming a more appreciated editor here on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are, but what am I? --NE2 06:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sand key (barrier island)

Hi NE2! Thanks for all your great work especially all the corrections you've made to my many mistakes. I'm curious about the Sand key issue. You've changed the article to note that it is one long island, which is I supposed true, but I'm not sure it tells the whole story. Sources such as this one seem to suggest that a series of barrier islands was turned into a "linear city" via extansive dredging. If two are more islands are joined by dreding are they one island? I think we should at least indicate the origins of this linear island. Thanks again for your many good works. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By 1882 there was only one inlet along its length, Indian Pass a bit south of CR 694. According to your link (p. 10) this was closed in the 1930s. I don't know if the part south of there had its own name originally, but p. 6 verifies that it's now all Sand Key, and [22] shows that it was by 1943. Thanks for making me look into this. --NE2 09:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Caladesi Island is now connected to Clearwater Beach Island, yet kept its name. It probably depends on local usage. --NE2 12:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. I have onlt ever heard that one part called Sand Key, but if the sources say different I can live with it. I was wondering and had also thought about Caladesi. I think I remember seeing it noted in the article that it became connected after a storm, so at least the issue is addressed in the article. Thanks again for all your great work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated Atlantic coastal places in Florida

Category:Populated Atlantic coastal places in Florida, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 91, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Gaines and Darton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ "HISTORY OF PASCO COUNTY Origins of Place Names". fivay.org. Retrieved 2 April 2014.

[1] "HISTORY OF PASCO COUNTY Origins of Place Names". fivay.org. Retrieved 2 April 2014.

[1]