User talk:Route 82

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Route 82, 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) 19:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the SVG images to PNG images. I've used rollback to fix this. Thanks . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:At_Grade_Clover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:At_Grade_Clover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, I put a "screenshot" license on this image. lensovet 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They won't allow that apparently... Route 82 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Route_35_(1969).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Route_35_(1969).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Route_55_(1969).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Route_55_(1969).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thanks for contributing your photos of road signs. As for the aerial photo and maps, the copyright for those is owned by the company that took the photos and the map company; thus those are not free enough for Wikipedia, and will have to be deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took them from Google Maps, and Windows Live Local...

took them and put them together, making a new image... they are technically no longer the same images I found online, so I see no reason why it can't be posted.

They are derivative works of copyrighted works, and are thus themself copyright-encumbered. --SPUI (T - C) 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding 600-series routes

Hello, Just wanted to give you a tip on getting to those 600-series routes. If you go on this page on the NJDOT website, you can download a Straight Line Diagrams packet for Ocean county. You can then use the diagrams to create articles and also find the routes themselves (as well as take photos and see if there is any signage confirming their existense - it appears that Ocean County doesn't have that many 600-series routes in the first place). Good luck and welcome to Wiki! lensovet 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

600-series edits

Hi again, just wanted to ask you a small favor - please do keep the references in the article! They provide a way for other people to verify what we have written so that our work is not just stuff we made up. Thanks! lensovet 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Route 82) They will see them at the bottom of the page, with all the numbers by the names it just looks very crowded...

The reason they appear at the bottom is because they are cited in the article itself. If you remove the references from the article the numbers at the bottom go away too. Btw, you can sign your comments by typing four "~" characters in succession. lensovet 06:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Route_322_Comparison.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Route_322_Comparison.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 18 (New Jersey) maintenance tag removal

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Route 42 & 41.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Route 42 & 41.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

422 "just west of Valley Forge"

I'm disputing the location you specify for this image. See associated talk page.--J Clear 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is west of Valley Forge but I was being more general when I meant that... It is near Pottstown, but I figured Valley Forge would be easier for people to locate when trying to pinpoint where this would be... I relabeled it anyways...Route 82 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Route 18 image

Hi there. You put Image:Route 18.jpg on the Route 18 (New Jersey) article, saying, "This was taken from a recently made PDF map, and shows that NJDOT has not completely given up on Route 18." I'm wondering how recently that PDF map was made, and if you could cite exactly where you got it from. The reason I ask is that its inclusion in the Route 18 article contradicts the plans to turn the southern alignment into a bike trail, and those plans have been in progress since 2003. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the link to the map that shows the proposed extension on the Route 18 page...Route 82 16:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Plotnick

Hey, I am sorry about removing one of those pictures. I did delete one because when I went to edit the article, there were more pictures than text. There's something about that article where the pictures and column headings aren't formatting right, and I am not familiar enough with how the photos work to figure out what's wrong. It wasn't a pornographic image at all (in fact, it was a cool picture) but usually articles with three pictures have a LOT more text. Feel free to add it back if you like. NickBurns 21:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using NJDOT materials

Hey man, just wanted to give you a heads-up. From NJDOT's legal page, The Department of Transportation has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute department information found here without obligation to the department, unless otherwise stated on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply.
This means that on images that are just a copy of their work (i.e. you did not do anything to it other than copy/paste it, etc), you can use {{PD-release}} on the images.
If you do something with their work, i.e. add additional labels or something on the image, then you can release the work under a free license of your choice, i.e. {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} or something similar.
Also consider uploading these guys to the Wikimedia Commons instead of the English wiki. lensovet 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{NJDOT}} for this, as it's not quite public domain. Can you add the URL from which you got each image? --SPUI (T - C) 09:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~You sure that they are actually "copyrighted"? For example, the county route designation maps don't have any copyright designations on them. lensovet 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)~~, right I forgot, US law technically doesn't allow you to "release" anything into the public domain. lensovet 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, they are free to use by the NJDOT... let's just leave it at that... Route 82 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 18.jpg

Just wanted to give you a heads-up, I nominated your Route 18 NJDOT map for speedy deletion, because I've put a higher-resolution PNG version of the same map on the Commons. So nothing personal, just a little housecleaning :) lensovet 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok whatever...Route 82 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:I-295 & I-95 proposed interchange (1971).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I-295 & I-95 proposed interchange (1971).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:I-295_proposed_interchanges_(1971).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I-295_proposed_interchanges_(1971).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Oceanic_Sunset_(small)_3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oceanic_Sunset_(small)_3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a colored pencil drawing made by myself... I figured just saying I created it in the PD was enough...

I added in the text description that I drew it... Route 82 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Route_74.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Route_74.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved stuff from userpage

Is alll those shields acceptable on the US Route 130 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs)

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 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... how do we go about discussing this?

I certainly hate when a certain someone changes the things I do... so coming to a general consensus is fine by me... just let me how and when we'll discuss this... Route 82 05:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Interstate 587

In your recent edits to Interstate 587, you removed information from the infobox and created an infobox redirect. For the record "Routeboxint" is a redirect to "Infobox Interstate" and thus, the latter should be used. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 33 edits

Hi there. I noticed you've been adding info to the "Future improvements" section of Route 33 (New Jersey). I was hoping you could provide sources for your information, as much of it seems to be speculation. -- NORTH ^talk 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sources have been added, but if you really questioned the validity of my submissions, all you had to do was type into Google and you would have found the same things I did just as easily. Route 82 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my responsibility to find sources for information you add. -- NORTH ^talk 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with how to reference yet... I have seen it done, but haven't duplicated it properly yet. And if you wanted me to quote my sources, then you could have just asked me to, instead of saying that it was "speculation" as if I was lying about it.

Image:278 & 878.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:278 & 878.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)—Scott5114 ↗ 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:278 unbuilt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:278 unbuilt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)—Scott5114 ↗ 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PA 378.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PA 378.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PA-378.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PA-378.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Route 364 (Missouri)

Please do not remove ^{[citation needed]} tags without providing a reliable source. You should also read Help:Show preview to avoid making eight minor edits in a row. Thank you. --NE2 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source at the bottom as an external link... Route 82 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a reliable source, and does not even support the assertion: "Due to the numbering of Missouri 364, it is possible that once the road is completed, it might become part of the Interstate Highway System. However, no official plans for that are currently in place." --NE2 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to your edits to Route 755. How do you know Route 755 was to be Interstate 755? --NE2 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you like sitting in front of your pc just waiting for someone to make an edit? it's like you have nothing else to do... I have labeled 755 as not a proposed interstate, but an unbuilt one. Even if it had been built as MO 755, as a freeway it is likely it would have become an interstate had it been built. The same goes for 364, it is not an interstate yet, but given it's planned future it seems very likely it will be. I feel that it is worth mentioning in the article, as long as it is made clear that it is not currently an interstate. Route 82 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:no original research and Wikipedia:reliable sources, as well as Wikipedia:civility. --NE2 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMG 0104a.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 0104a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Re: New Jersey Route 60

Yes, I removed that link because it was unencyclopedic. Please read Wikipedia:External links. We don't link to fan fiction on the Harry Potter articles, nor do we link to fan fiction on the road articles. -- NORTH ^talk 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your map is original research, based on how you think Route 60 would have been built. --NE2 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having that map up??? It has been stated that Route 60 would have multiplexed with Route 55 in Vineland... I drew the most logical position it would have taken... there is nothing wrong with having that concept image displayed... Route 82 00:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your map assumes the location of the road, its interchanges, and its exit numbers. Unless you have a reliable source that includes these, the map is original research. --NE2 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this map??

This surely has proposed highways on it that don't exist...Route 82 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with that map, given its scale. Yours gets into way too much detail. --NE2 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then if I draw my represntation of Route 60 & 55 as simple as this map... then it can stay?? Route 82 17:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It would be best if you cited a source - do any of the planning maps at phillyroads show it? --NE2 18:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.. but I'm sure not all of the highways on that Cleveland map are taken from another map source... some are probably elaborated on... Route 82 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know, since I didn't make the map. But proposed Interstates typically had more planning than random state highways. --NE2 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freehold Bypass 67-03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Freehold Bypass 67-03.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SI proposed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SI proposed.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:SI proposed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SI proposed.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the "no source" tag without providing a source, and do not remove the "replaceable" tag, since a hand-drawn map can include the same information. --NE2 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20 belt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:20 belt.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:322 bypass.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:322 bypass.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Driscoll_Expressway.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Driscoll_Expressway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:I-695.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I-695.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Paddu 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have uploaded many other maps that could be replaced by drawings, and are missing copyright holder information and proper fair use rationales. There are too many to list here. Jkelly 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Route 35 (1969).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Route 35 (1969).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Jkelly 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:I-755a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I-755a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:178_unbuilt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:178_unbuilt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1967_(I-95).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1967_(I-95).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:35_freeway.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:35_freeway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

It's not that hard. Template:cite web has all the instructions you need. -- NORTH ^talk 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Future Improvements"

Please stop changing section headers to read "Future Improvements". It should either be Future developments (per WP:NJSCR) or simply Future (per WP:IH). The word "improvements" violates WP:NPOV, and at the very least, should not be capitalized per the Manual of Style.

Secondly, there is never a good reason to convert prose to a bulleted list (regarding this edit). I-295 is currently a good article, and I'd like to keep it that way. Sections that consist entirely of bulleted lists harm the article. -- NORTH ^talk 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see.... when you do something to an article or do alot of work on an article... it shouldn't be changed... but you are ok with changing other people's articles with no problem... I see how it is... and what the hell is the difference between saying improvements and developments??? improvements is the word they use most often when refering to new construction... developments refers to a housing or commercial construction... Route 82 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, please. Everything you added to the article is still there, with the wording slightly improved.

Improvements is POV; I could easily make an argument that resurfacing these roads is just encouraging more people to use them and causing more traffic and more pollution – not much of an improvement at all. The word developments here refers to definition 2, as in "Our news team brings you the latest developments", not a housing development. -- NORTH ^talk 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly improved? and just how do you define that? perhaps I think that what I typed was a "slight improvement" over what you said... like the bullets... they are helpful in seperating each project listed in the "developments" section... so it doesn't seem like one globbed together section... so "slightly improving" is in fact changing it to your "POV" of how it should be worded... don't be so critical man, and just let some changes stay the way they are... you don't have to have 100% absolute control over EVERY highway article on wikipedia... and don't deny that you aren't trying...Route 82 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not assuming good faith. All I did was fix the grammar and expand your edit on the resurfacing. Improving grammar isn't what POV means, POV refers to bias in the text.

You may also want to read what it says at the bottom of the edit window. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Heck, if you don't like my grammar, feel free to edit me, as long as it doesn't turn into a revert war.

Sections that consist entirely of bulleted lists are discouraged per Wikipedia:Embedded lists. The second example down on that page could apply here, but there's no preceding paragraph, and the subsequent paragraphs aren't particularly short. -- NORTH ^talk 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resurfacing really is not important. Since Wikipedia exists to cover objects' history as well as current status, if you include current repaving projects, you should also include past ones. The article would then have several paragraphs about regular repavings. It's like getting a haircut; it's done every once in a while, and if you wait way too long before doing it, it may cause "problems" that we may cover, but we don't list when people get haircuts, even if they can be sourced. --NE2 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NE2, resurfacing is not noteworthy. A road is important in where it is, what it connects, and its status. Extending (or reducing), widening, reclassifying would therefore be noteworthy, but it should be assumed that the surface would be maintained. LessHeard vanU 14:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in general, resurfacing is not noteworthy, unless there is something special about the type of resurfacing done, such as rubberized asphalt being applied for the first time in that area. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with all above. As I said on the Village Pump, Oklahoma State Highway 74 has been at least partially resurfaced four times in the past seven years, and it looks like ODOT are gearing up for a fifth round. So no, I don't think repaving a highway is notable enough to be mentioned. —Scott5114 ↗ 07:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PA Turnpike / PA 63 Slip Ramp

I just wanted to let you know that in the interest of reaching a consensus, I've opened a discussion at Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike#PA 63 Slip Ramp regarding the inclusion of this potential interchange. Since you made the add and researched this, I'm particularly interested in hearing your opinions on the issue. Thanks, --Clubjuggle 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion about I-195

I am reverting your post on several talk pages. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum; the talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. --NE2 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State name on MD interstate shields

I agree with your removal of the MD state name interstate shields, and apparently others at WT:MDRD do as well. If you want to add a comment there, you may do so in hopes of establishing a consensus on this issue. Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-195 issue

I wanted to talk on your page b/c this is more of a me-to-you than about the article itself.

I'm really not sure why you're being so defensive. Wikipedia's not owned by anyone, so it's not like we're changing something belonging to you. It's not a personal attack; it's just an attempt to make WP more informative than it already is. Information comes from sources, that's how Britannica works; the editors don't insert conjecture to their articles, and we shouldn't here. If you don't know for sure, it shouldn't be here.

In regards to the first two examples you gave on the talk page, they're pictures that have sources on their respective article pages. The last one should have a cite, but seeing as I know nothing about Louisiana roads, it's not my place to add {{fact}} temps. Also, about the scrutiny issue, I can only speak for myself, and since I've lived in NJ most of my life and spent all my life on the East Coast, I have sufficient knowledge to consider myself part of the NJ roads project, and this happens to be one of the pages on my watchlist. I don't seek out changes in other areas I don't know, so my only assumption (and you know what they say about assuming) is more people know about NJ roads than, let's say, Louisiana or Montana roads. It's not to say that NJ roads are any more important; it's just saying they're more well-known by the people who edit them than others.

So, my suggestion to you is, and this is me talking as one who always assumes good faith, I would cut down on the, "Why are you messing up my page?" tone, because that's only going to get you in trouble with less lenient editors in the future. I personally have nothing wrong with what you're doing (IMO, a wrong edit is better than a troll edit or even no edit at all), but someone will, and I just want to make sure that nothing happens to you to where you'll never want to edit again. So, that being said, you get what I'm saying? Eagles Fan In Tampa 17:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, and I am sorry for getting snippy. It just seems anytime I try to do something on wikipedia it is undermined in 5 seconds by someone else (sometimes for the right reasons & sometimes not). I created a map of my own based on steve andersons Route 60 page of where the proposed freeway was to go, based on how he described in his article the highway would run. It was taken down for being original research, so it upsets me to see other people's "Original Research" still on several articles... it's just annoying to me is all... Also, I changed the 195 page to just state that 15.7 miles would be added to 195 if laid over the two highways, and I took out the renumbered exits part. Route 82 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's all good. No apology necessary; I'm not even close to mad :-D. I just want you to make sure you realize what you're doing, while seemingly important, could piss a lot of people off, if only for the "my way" attitude. I agree that what you're doing will be important, but it's not yet, as it's not set in stone as to the situation regarding the fate of I-295/I-95 north of Exit 60. Take it from me: you've got less than 1500 edits under your belt, and while I've got only a few more (about 2500 +/-), I was definitely in your shoes not too long ago. However, Wikipedia, like any good organization, is all about politics, and if you piss off the wrong people, no one will respect anything you do ever again, no matter how right you honestly are and how many sources you may have. So don't sweat it, because you're doing just fine...just sometimes you have to pick your battles, and in this arena, without sources, you'll almost always fight a losing one. Just don't get stuck being labelled "that guy." Don't let it get you down; you're going a great job otherwise! Eagles Fan In Tampa 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:90 proposed.jpg

Hi, your fair use for Image:90 proposed.jpg seems reasonable; any idea where you obtained this image from? Cheers from a real person, John Vandenberg 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to spend some time working on Your uploads and fix them to mention a source before the bots delete them. Let me know if you have any questions relating to images, or if you want one of your deleted images restored. John Vandenberg 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I uploaded these images they did have a copyright tag... first was the {{art}} tag... that meant it was a work of art and someone had the copyright to it. That didn't work so then someone made an {{NJDOT}}, which worked out becuz the state and DOT had copyright to this map and all the others I had uploaded.... but that still wasn't enough, the NJDOT license was deleted, and left these images without a tag... at this point I really don't give a crap anymore... these wiki people have been far too nitpicky. Their blind and unyielding follow of the rules is resulting in some worthwhile images (such as the NJ 90 image) being taken off the site. I am tired of trying to convince them of their worth... so at this point, they can delete the damn images and I'll keep them to myself. Give them to Steve Anderson, or someone else to post on their websites... But thank you for your interest and opinion... we seem to be on the same page... unlike the others... Route 82 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont give up yet. Adding "non-free" images on Wikipedia can be a nightmare, especially if they are "replaceable". The reason for this is that Wikipedia wants to avoid all copyright problems by limiting its use of copyright to the bare necessity; this helps us burn Wikipedia onto CD and distribute it in schools across the globe.

I have not seen {{NJDOT}} in my travels until now, but I have reviewed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_29#Template:NJDOT now and I am not convinced by the outcome as no proper analysis of law was undertaken. It is quite possible that NJ DOT images are "free"; any chance you can call NJ DOT and ask them if images they produce can be modified and redistributed?

In addition, it appears that the deletion of your images was an unintended side effect. What should have happened is that all use of that copyright template should have been replaced with an equally strong copyright tag, which would have meant that your images would still be in place. I will correct this in a day or two. John Vandenberg 14:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and help with the images I posted... it's very refreshing... I will try and contact the NJDOT, but it's hard getting through to them... I'll let you know what I find out... Route 82 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-576 alignments

Are you sure? Because Interstate-Guide.com and Kurumi roads is not a reliable source. You didn't write a summary of reasons you add the I-576 information back. Much of those websites are speculations. Freewayguy__Let me know what's up 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Please read WP:RS and cite sources directly that even support your claims. —O (说 • 喝) 22:40, 02 October 2007 (GMT)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dominion Control 02 (small).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dominion Control 02 (small).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dominion Control 02 (small).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dominion Control 02 (small).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dominion Control 02 (small).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dominion Control 02 (small).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this image being disputed??? I applied the game screenshot template... the same exact one that was applied here...

[1]

[2]

even here....

[3]

what else is the problem???? it was even reduced in size by someone... Route 82 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edit to Hybrid vehicle

Regarding my reversion of the addition of this link -- it's little more than a poorly researched blog site. If someone wants to work criticisms against gasoline-electric vehicles into the article, it should be done so in the prose not by linking to a shakily documented blog site that has its own agenda (Autobytel). You need multiple reliable sources not a poorly researched, inaccurate blog article. - Ageekgal 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very same website you're pushing, ironically, has a "Go Hybrid!" article as well, here. Looks like you need more and better sources. ;) - Ageekgal 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I like Hybrids... and hope they keep improving, but I read the article and thought it was important to include a con to the hybrid page... sorry... Route 82 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:NYC_1932_(lower)_2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NYC_1932_(lower)_2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

Hello there I am writing up the GA review on [Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector]] to which you also contributed. Could you help me with a second opinion on the query "Is it broad in coverage" In your humble opinion is it aye or nay? and if nay why? Thank you kind regards SriMesh | talk 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Woolworth 02a.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Woolworth 02a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Commons

File:87 & 187.jpg, an image uploaded to Wikipedia from this account in June 2006 (log), has been transferred to commons as File:87 and 187.jpg (Commons:File:87 and 187.jpg) by Dough4872. The image is used in one local page, so I updated it (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Route 147 WB.jpg

File:Route 147 WB.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Route 147 WB.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Route 147 WB.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Route 147 End.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Route 147 End.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Route 147 sign.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Route 147 sign.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Route 143.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Route 143.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Junction Route 143.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Junction Route 143.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vineland 55-60.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vineland 55-60.jpg, 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of County Route 666 (Atlantic County, New Jersey)

The article County Route 666 (Atlantic County, New Jersey) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county route

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. Admrboltz (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:549 sign.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:549 MP.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:17, 4 December 2013 (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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Route 82. 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]

Proposed deletion of File:Route 33 Super 2.jpg

The file File:Route 33 Super 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:CR 623.jpg

The file File:CR 623.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:CR 632.jpg

The file File:CR 632.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:BW Skyline 3c.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:BW Skyline 3c.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Hello, I like the files you uploaded here. I just wanted to let you know that I've moved some (or all) of them to Wikimedia Commons. What files are those exactly? See here

--TheImaCow (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]