User talk:Nextbarker

Welcome!

Hello, Nextbarker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

It appears that you are interested in editing our road articles. If you are, then here is a list of pages that may be of interest to you:

Highways Project (worldwide)
U.S. Roads Project (U.S. only)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the articles to link to non-existent images. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help questions

How do you make interstate shields, like 78, or 80, smaller, that's scary up close?

And how do you insert pictures to the screen?

I am here to answer your questions. The code to insert an image, for example, looks like: [[Image:Interstate88.svg|150px|right]]. The "150px" is the size of the image, you can adjust that if you like. Wikipedia:Images may also have some info that may interest you.--Commander Keane 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you click on an image you are taken to its description page. You can't control the size of an image in a description page.--Commander Keane 02:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shields

What exactly are you doing? Why are you shrinking the shields, and in some cases replacing them with the wrong shield (like Route 59 (New Jersey))? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice most of your edits were like that, and it's not all that surprising, knowing you from before. I recommend you play in the sandbox for a while to get the hang of editing. Also, think about what you are saying before clicking save; many of your edits had bad grammar or formatting, or simply didn't belong in the article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it. Route 1 (New Jersey) is NOT about US 1; it is about the pre-1953 Route 1. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again. What the hell are you doing? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major junctions

The "major junctions" field is for a few major junctions, not all junctions with other numbered routes. Please help keep the infobox to a reasonable size. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand? State routes are NOT major junctions. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your name

Please sign your name when posting here and in other user talk pages Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages thanks --Brat32 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another friendly reminder to remember to sign your posts on talk pages. You may find it beneficial to read the talk page section of the tutorial which will help you out with that and some other formatting issues, such as subject headers and indentation. -- NORTH ^talk 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US 22 infobox

Route 31 and Route 82 do not go on US 22's infobox because state routes are not major junctions on a route that stretches all the way from Cincinnati to Newark. The fact that Route 82 goes to the Parkway is irrelevant because US 22 connects with the parkway itself. -- NORTH ^talk 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_road template standards

I have added a discussion thread at WT:NJSCR to address standards for NJ road infoboxes and invite your participation. Over the past several weeks, we have made tremendous progress in cleaning up the articles for the State highways in New Jersey, especially with the expansion and addition of infoboxes to most of these articles. However, there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what should be going in these infoboxes. I am creating this thread and inviting those users who have been active participants in editing these pages to come up with a mutually agreeable answer on the issues listed. I will take on the task of moderating this discussion, but I will add my 2 cents on these topics. We can add more questions if needed, but please, be civil. Alansohn 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than address any specific infoboxes and junctions, lets take the discussion to WT:NJSCR and address a set of standards so that we don't need to argue about specific example. Alansohn 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agreed on everything there'd be no issue. My suggestion is that we work together to come up with a consensus on the issue. This isn't about you or any other one person. it's about coming up for clearer rules so that we're all on the same page. Alansohn 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused... why did you send me that message when it should have gone to Alansohn? mlaurenti 23:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NJ road shields

You did an okay job with the shields in the exit lists, but there were some problems that I was more than happy to fix with things like inconsistent dimensions, odd placement, and incompleteness.

But for Pete's freaking sake, please sign your posts on talk pages!!! -- NORTH ^talk 05:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junctions in infoboxes

There's no need for you to seek approval for every edit you make. The reason there was a problem two months ago was because when other editors removed your junctions from the infobox, you kept adding them back without discussing it, and because you were adding junctions that were obviously minor. Since that time, we've had a discussion on WT:NJSCR regarding what should be included that I suggest you read. It didn't reach any formal conclusion, which I think is okay, but it does layout some guidelines that you might find useful so you don't have to ask about every individual junction. Here are some tips:

Most longer routes (like the Garden State Parkway) are okay as is. We've discussed the list already to decide which ones should be included, and adding any more junctions would make the list too long.
What is "too long"? We've decided that there should be a limit of 10, but this is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, so there are exceptions. Don't add an eleventh junction unless you're sure it's major.
Anything "higher" than the route in question should always be included. That means that Interstate routes always go on U.S. Routes, U.S. Routes always go on state routes, and state routes always go on county routes. Of course, that's unless it makes the infobox too long.
Anything "lower" that the route in question (like putting a county route on the list for a state route) should rarely be included. The reason they are often included, however, is to "flesh out" the list. No route should really have less than five junctions, if it can be helped.
There should be no more than two junctions listed in the same municipality (town). Multiple junctions with the same route should be avoided.

That's all I can think of for now. I'd like to see you try to take it on your own from here, rather than asking about every single junction on the article talk pages. If you have a question for me about these guidelines, ask me on my own talk page: User talk:Northenglish. -- NORTH ^talk 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with local and WP:IH standards. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shield images

The correct images to use for New Jersey roads are New Jersey XX.svg. These match the correct font and oval shape used on most new signage, the Circle sign XX.svg images (which were used a long time ago) do not.

Also, on disambiguation pages, such as List of highways numbered 79, the link should either be the full name – New Jersey Route 79 – or the name with parentheses – Route 79 (New Jersey) – not a short form. -- NORTH ^talk 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting to see you're still not signing your posts on talk pages. Every question you asked on the county route pages can be answered by simply reading the straight line diagrams, just like the editors who made the infoboxes did. -- NORTH ^talk 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 622 (Middlesex County, New Jersey)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for writing this article. Unfortunately it doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles. However, please do not be disheartened by what may happen to your first article, if indeed it is deleted. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and add articles which conform with the inclusion criteria. For help, see Help:Contents. To find out what will probably be deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my user talk page. To do this, click on my name (just after this sentence) and click discussion at the top and then the (+) button at the top. ffm ^yes? 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok. Just remember, when posting a wikipedia article, it needs to meet the notablility guidelines, and needs to be longer than a sentance. ffm ^yes? 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime

Thank you for experimenting with the page The $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Your edits were reverted because information on whether GSN has the rights to air the episodes has nothing to do with the show itself; instead this information is fancruft. --Goldrushcavi 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change user page

Please change your user page, nextbarker, to include more appropriate content. Where are you from? What is your occupation (if any)? What are your interest and hobbies? What are your areas of expertise within Wikipedia? Right now, the page consists of content that simply does not belong. Thank you. - Desmond Hobson 14:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Nextbarker! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 51 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Jonathan Goodson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nextbarker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nextbarker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Born Lucky

The article Born Lucky has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]