User talk:PhATxPnOY916


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #163

This is PhATxPnOY916's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here, and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert your name and timestamp, use (~~~~) (four tildes), or, to insert just your name, type (~~~) (three tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you may want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BL-80

On exit list when you add to Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California); the decomd CA-160 designation is unneed. Decomd routes are little importance to WP:ELG and ELG prohibits colors. Unbuilt is more value to ELG this is why they are always shade in gray means the roads are not built. Freewayguy--Meet 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be used for more general notes; if the ramps actually connect to another road that then serves as a connection, that's not really important to the overall design of the interchange. --NE2 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nick....

NOW I know where the 916 comes from! Edit Centric (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol ... yep, you know it. :) PhATxPnOY916 (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 160

It depends if left exits are important enough to mention - I'm not sure that they are. But it's definitely not useful to mention that it's the south and north end of SR 160, and the fact that it's an onramp to Bus. 80 eastbound is obvious from looking at the list (and the entrance at exit 47B would serve the same purpose), and it's not true because you can exit at Arden Way. The shields in the "end of freeway" colspans are very unnecessary. --NE2 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the entrance at exit 47B does serve the same purpose. The exit was originally for Royal Oaks Drive only. Exposition Boulevard dead-ended a few yards west of Tribute Road until the mid-1990s when it was extended to Leisure Lane and the SR 160 ramps. PhATxPnOY916 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering, do you believe it's perfectly okay to integrate our changes with others' to the exit lists? I actually believe that your changes are for the better intentions. For example, making a note of a 'left' exit is nothing wrong, as well as writing down "south end of SR XX." How do you think we can exemplify our revisions if NE2 keeps reverting them and getting rid of all our changes? This is Wikipedia, not NE2's house. In my opinion, this is unacceptable. What do you plan to do about it? There has to be a better consensus in which we all can agree on. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Thank you, I appreciate it. All I've been doing was following guidelines from the WP:ELG. Plus, I've tried to follow a similar approach of NE2's way of exit lists in other articles lately, only to get slapped in the face with "redundant" and "unneccessary". I guess we all have to come to some sort of compromise, like sticking with the county abbreviations in the mileposts. PhATxPnOY916 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry too much about those words. He's always going against consensus. Are you aware of the ongoing NE2's arbitration? AL2TB Gab or Tab 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the left exit note. There's no reason to say that it's the south end; that's clear from the infobox, and was actually incorrect how you were doing it, since the south end is SR 4, not SR 4 west. --NE2 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the note. Can you show me your revision? AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At exit 46B: "Northbound left exit and southbound entrance" --NE2 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Route E2 (California)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article County Route E2 (California), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR 78

Can you help merge the intersection list with exit list? I'm still having little trouble building exit list.--Freewayguy (Meet) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took me awhile, but I got it done. PhATxPnOY916 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to California State Route 78 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco⁵ 02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postmile abbreviations

Nobody objected to putting the abbreviations in the county column rather than the postmile column; see the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways#Section break. Thank you. --NE2 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any changes that were corrections rather than formatting changes, except for the closed eastbound entrance. --NE2 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2 started a discussion regarding to the removal of the county abbreviations at WT:ELG. I, for one, would certainly love to hear your opinion, and I'm sure others will, too. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 162

Can you help me change to exit list formats? Because I'm nominating the CAint tables for deletions.--Freewayguy (Meet) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reconstructing the list. Have a look at it. --PhATxPnOY916 (talk to me) 09:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caltrans' designated freeways

There is NE2's discussion for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways#Should we use the exact definition of freeway that Caltrans uses?. Some time ago, you added a note to the junction list in US 395 (CA) that US 395 is a freeway at an interchange with SR 70 (CA). That short segment is officially considered a freeway, but NE2 does not believe that your notes in the junction list should belong there. Would you like to say something in the discussion in the link provided above? Thank you! ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Felipe Aira 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to NE2

NE2 keeps reverting my edits that directions of I-40 and SR 58 are not needed which is needed on Interstate 15 in California exit list. My advice, don't trust him and don't listen to him. If you have problems with him ask Rschen7754 to have this user blocked for disruption and assuming ownership of articles. --75.47.156.80 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've had problems with him before, especially with areas I know about very well, like around Sacramento and surrounding areas. Now I'm just being tolerable and focusing on little edits that don't result in an edit war. I've even provided photos in a couple of talk areas of the article to prove a point. I agree with your edits, though. Even though Caltrans doesn't sign them on the BGS's, I think it's important to add the direction the route number is traveling towards. –PhATxPnOY916 ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To use warning templates, read WP:UTM. --75.47.139.131 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read up a little on the warning templates. Thanks. I'll try to use them whenever neccessary. –PhATxPnOY916 ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2 has gone crazy. He is not following consensus at all. My main concern is NE2 made bad faith summary edits (which is consider vandalism) on Interstate 96 saying; (No, that wasn't a joke. Please read the section and notice the links.). He removed an auxilliary interstate route template from the Auxilliary Routes section and Rschen7754 restored it back where it belongs and ask NE2 (please read WP:IH). Well guess what NE2 is not as smart at all. --75.47.139.131 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying. I know he doesn't follow consensus. I've been told. It looks like he spends most of his daily life on here anyway according to his contributions trying to revert everybody's edits because it doesn't fit his standards. –PhATxPnOY916 ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sometimes NE2 doesn't understand people's questions. He thinks I know everything; while I don't. I don't know much about highways other than California, because most other states I never been to besdie DC, and Chicago/Denver Ariport. And also, he gets upset when people ask him background questions. He say he's not in California, Yea, but doens't mean its true. Also only becasue people say something doesn't mean its neccessairly true. he can be living in Sacramento, or any mountainside.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Alexfusco5 has sometimes wrongly revert changes when shouldn't be and gave false warning message, like he have done to SR 78 a while ago. Your changes was valid, and is not a vandal, and ignore that message Alexfusco gave you.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is that NE2 keeps following me around to continue disruption around articles and user pages. --75.47.158.26 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NE2 enjoys undoing 75.47's changes. Sometimes he hooks you up. 75.47's changes sometimes does not conforms to WP:ELG and sometimes this causes NE2 extra works to undo it. If he does not understand and ask us for help, its another thing.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Imzadi1979

And this is behaviour that is becoming of someone who wants to be an administrator? seicer | talk | contribs 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freewayguy that's NOT the way how you behave, stop being uncivil and go away or get blocked. --75.47.194.16 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75.47.xxx; please continue this conversation somewhere else; not here. PH96 has other things to do and worry about. Please see WP:CHAT. Thanks.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often work with Imzadi1979, so I don't know him that well. He's from Michigan, I'm down at Orange County, California. I never been to Michigan,I totally have No clue about their roads.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody enjoy reverting edits neither do I. Changing from handwritten to {{Jct|state=XX|I|00}} is not a unconstructive, just pointless. I know the time when I only do one. It's better not to do that unless I'm preparing to change the shields or when I'm updating or doing something else like fixing the exit list. And when I want to do it, its better to do to all of it, otherwise people just going to twonder what the heck was different between June and August.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Archiving

To archive your talk page in case this gets bigger, read Help:Archiving a talk page --75.47.154.93 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. –PhATxPnOY916 ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A contest you may be interested in

Hello, PhATxPnOY916. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The California State Highway Junction Lists Award
		PhATxPnOY916, for your impressive efforts to fix up all the junction lists on all the WP:CASH articles (and for fixing some of my mistakes, too! :D ). Keep up the great work!

--Mgillfr (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"South/north end of freeway" or "South/north end of freeway on SR XX"?

Hi PhATxPnOY916. I remembered that not too long ago I introduced the idea of adding "South/north end of freeway on SR XX" when a route has an overlap in a freeway segment in another route. I'm debating whether we should really say "on SR XX" in the "South/north end of freeway" notes because the wording may be a bit vague to an outside reader. Anyways, I'd like to hear your input about it. :) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mgillfr. I was kind of thinking about that myself. I think it would be okay to leave "South/North/West/East end of freeway on SR/I/US XXX" as it is since it is on another route's freeway/highway segment, but for me, it wouldn't really matter. I'd be fine with it either way. I guess that's my take on it.

Plus, I think listing the superior route's destinations on the major intersections/exit list is actually better (for example, State Route 14's exits listed on State Route 138's list instead of listing "See SR 14"). That way, the reader won't have to go to the superior route's article to read the list, especially when lists like US 101 and I-5 are so long. So I like that idea. =) –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we are both fine with it, so I guess we can settle it at that. :) Anyways, I also noticed that you sure fixed up nearly all the junction lists in California (which is awesome work!), but I've always wondered where did you get the control cities from? I tried using Google Maps street view, but when I try to zoom in on a spot that shows a photo of the sign, the control cities are always blurry and illegible from the picture. How did you find the control cities? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 03:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're not doing too bad yourself. Yeah, about the control cities: sometimes on Google Maps street view... yes, the signs sometimes are blurry and sometimes are legible. It's kind of a trick, but what I do is I try to make out what the blurred sign says, like the length of the word, space between words and/or if the mileage number is single, double or triple. Then I go back to regular street map view, make out the estimated distance between the route and the destination and sort of figure it out that way. For example, I edited State Route 135's list recently and on Google Maps street view, I saw a tiny mileage sign on southbound State Route 135 (Broadway) in Santa Maria approaching State Route 166 (Main Street). It was small and blurry, but I noticed that the city name was kind of long and the mileage number was a single digit. I switched back to regular map view and estimated where it was leading to and saw that it was referring to the city of Guadalupe. That's how I kind of know.

Of course, if a sign is too illegible and can't make out what it says where it leads on Google Maps street view, I usually leave the entry alone, unless one day I'll pass through that particular area and know what it really says, which is also another way I find out. =D –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding South/north/west/east end of freeway on I/SR/US XX

I thought of a better idea of listing the freeway termini with overlapped routes. How about if, for example, for SR 46: if the south/north end of freeway on US 101 is also the south/north end of of the US 101 overlap, can we change, for example: "South end of freeway on US 101" to "South end of freeway at south end of US 101 overlap"? Would you agree to it, or would you have any ideas or oppositions to this? Thanks for reading this. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really opposed to it. My only concern is that in the notes section, it already says "north/south/east/west end of I/US/SR XXX" and there may be some opposition regarding the idea of "north/south/east/west end of freeway at north/south/east/west end of I/US/SR XXX overlap" from other editors. So you probably have to get input from others, but for me, I can go for the idea. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 00:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R2D

There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect; some of your changes at [1] are unnecessary. --Rs chen 7754 18:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll keep that in mind. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 00:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe?

I saw you work with California road articles. I thought you would maybe be interested in getting California State Route 125 to GA maybe or atleast in good shape. It is an important to modern day Chula Vista and im trying to expand Chula Vista coverage for its centennial this year but some things i dont know much about like roads. Its ok if you dont want to work on it or interested. Spongie555 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitations

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to San Diego. We encourage you to join WikiProject San Diego where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to San Diego on Wikipedia.
If you would like more information on what needs to be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject California, including the Southern California Task Force.

If you are interested in California-related themes, you may want to check out the California Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to California or Southern California related articles you may want to join WikiProject California, especially the Southern California task force (signup here). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete access" on exit lists

Hi there. I'm curious why you are classify full three-way interchanges, and other similar interchanges, where a highway terminates as "incomplete access". For example, the I-5 - I-210 interchange near Sylmar (that I just reverted[2]). As 210 terminates here with the 5, traffic from the 210 can go either north to Sacramento or south to downtown LA. Meanwhile, traffic from either direction on the 5 can get onto the 210. So how is this "incomplete access" when someone coming in from a given direction has access to the other two directions? It would only be incomplete if the 210 actually continued to the west, and there were no ramps connecting it to the 5.

What I would define as "incomplete" is a two-way interchange like the 5-99 interchange near Wheeler Ridge, where traffic on the 99 is forced to go on southbound 5; there isn't a ramp connecting southbound 99 with northbound 5, nor a ramp from southbound 5 to northbound 99. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I was skeptical about those interchanges, despite it being said "northbound/southbound/eastbound/westbound exit and southbound/northbound/westbound/eastbound entrance". I'll go back to some of the articles and make some changes. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 09:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you've done it already. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 09:49, 23 March 2011 (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 → 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California junction list conversion

Long time no see! So if you haven't noticed, we're converting all of the CA junction lists to templates, finally. I've started from I-980 and am going down numerically, but if you want to jump in, feel free to. --Rs chen 7754 10:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I've noticed. I'll do what I can. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 11:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI - the syntax for {{jctbridge}} has changed. You need to use state=CA, |exit if needed, and postmile= (with a nbsp if there is no postmile). This is due to our postmile system and our having to code special scenarios for CA. :/ --Rs chen 7754 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 08:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we finally got km conversions across the rest of the US tonight. We're hoping to bring that to the Interstates in CA since Caltrans has posted statewide mileages, but there's still some coding that needs to be fixed. --Rs chen 7754 09:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 15 June

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 California State Route 41 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –PhATxPnOY916 (^{talk to me}) 01:09, 16 June 2015 (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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PhATxPnOY916. 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, PhATxPnOY916. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited K Street (Sacramento), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safeway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PhATxPnOY916. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited KSAO-LD, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High definition. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

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

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]