Jump to content

User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ACR for California State Route 78

I've just finished a detailed review of the article. (It wasn't showing up for me on the ACR page, but its there on the actual page dedicated to the review.) I saw your frustration with not having a decent review on this article for so long. For all that you've been doing with the USRD Cup, as well as promoting several Nevada articles I've worked on to C- and B-Class, I figured it was the least I could do. I'll be watching the ACR page for response to my comments. --LJ (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thanks! I appreciate it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Sorry to be so nitpicky on some of that stuff, but we are aiming for a high, A-Class quality article here ;-) Let me know when you've made changes, and I'll look at it again. --LJ (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the Lake Hodges Bridge article

Here's another Wikipedia article you might want to consider for deletion due to the "not notable" claim: Lake Hodges Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Hodges_Bridge

AkiStuart (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your AfD nomination of Cypress Street Viaduct

Regarding your deletion nomination of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Street Viaduct, could you please explain in detail in the AfD why you don't think this topic passes WP:NOTABILITY other than "Not a notable bridge."? --Oakshade (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad - most of the ones I tagged were not notable. Apparently there were a few that are. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Freewayguy

Per your block notice of Freewayguy (talk · contribs), I'm letting you know that I've unprotected his talk page to allow him to request an unblock. He's been editing the Ref Desk as an IP for the last month or so (see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Science desk: Jupiter/Saturn/Colo(u)r guy for details), and while his prose hasn't improved, he's at least avoided mainspace. Anyway, he noted that his talk page's protection prevented him from requesting an unblock. I don't expect anything to come of one, but I figured a review after a few months wasn't unreasonable. Anyway, you may be seeing some traffic on that in the next day or two. — Lomn 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[1]. He stays blocked. Ask before you do anything like this next time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I was unaware of his other project "work" and understood the page protection to merely have been stopping abuse of the unblock template. — Lomn 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN SK roads

Thank you for the heads up on history sections being pre-requisite. Both the articles have a history section now, and I will fill it out more substantially tommorrow if able to find any tomes online. It has definitely been an interesting experience this contest. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Posta Road Bridge

Please expand your nomination with a reasoning as to why you believe the bridge doesn't meet notability criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(ab)user at Commons

Commons:Special:Contributions/El_Monte. I guess this is a sock of User:Freewayguy. multichill (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for letting me know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA pre-requisites

Hello there, I will ask this on the WP roads talk page as well, but thought I would ask here too. Are maps necessary or just nice to have for an article going for GA? In other words can no map be a fail? or not. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maps are not required for GA. Usually when I reviewed articles, I would say something like "A map would be nice" but not require it for GA. However, at the FAC level a map practically is required. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mgillfr

This user evaded his block and all of sockpuppet accounts of AL2TB was blocked indefinitely. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, let the administrators handle it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Rschen7754. I just noticed that I-210 is back again after his block. I then checked the range, and noticed you had blocked the /16 range a couple of times. Was that IP socks of I-210? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruckner Pix

All the SB 95 signs for 278 in order. Amlnet49 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the statement: "When New York switches to mile-based numbers in 2010, the signs wil be changed back to the 1ABC,2,3,4AB,5AB,6ABC,7ABC,8ABC format." Where's your source for this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 12:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

71 ip

It's Tuesday and I know you're busy, but for User talk:71.234.165.62, I'm requesting a block. We've given plenty of warnings, and he just doesn't get the point. Drop me a line on my Talk if you have anything to add. Thanks. --MPD T / C 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a few diffs? This way if anybody questions it, I can back it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, blocked 1 week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

None of my business,

but I saw where a bot reported you had performed a block here [2], but I can´t find a log of it or a mention of it on the user´s talkpage. It would be an excellent block, but I´m not seeing it. Thanks.Flaquito (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just found it. Thanks.Flaquito (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC).
(ec) You can always check the block log. For username blocks I usually don't leave a talkpage message as the page will probably wind up going into the trash anyway, and the vandal typically knows that what he is doing is wrong - telling him so again will do nothing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain. I had seen his sandbox edits earlier and was alarmed by them. Have a good night. Flaquito (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

reply re NWWR

Hello I replied at NWWR Talk page. It is not my intent to not to abandon this part..it is your responsibility to make sure that your GAN meets basic prose and WP:MOS guidelines. GAN is not a checklist for GA...My problem with writing articles, is that after spending 100+ hours on an article, it becomes hard to see the forest for the trees, and an extra set of eyes does help a lot, which (the extra eyes part) is what the GA review is good for. I have tried Peer reviews before, but they very rarely get commented upon, or they get an automated PR posted. If you have a problem with my GA reviews/articles then do or don't put points in the contest I don't care, do what you feel comfortable with You are in a singularly difficult position as a sole arbitrator of issues in the contest, and as such, you may dictate the contest and points how you so desire - I am OK with either which way. I will still write articles as I enjoy writing articles and I enjoy SK and as I said before I don't care where I focus my attention on SK, it is just fun to let the WWW see more of SK. I know I am not the world's best writer which is why I am not a journalist for the local newspaper nor am I a published author. Maybe if I write long enough on wikipedia I may be.... However, as I look at initial articles I wrote a long time ago to ones I have written recently I am getting better, and I am also learning more wikicode and html code which I think is also pretty good for a little old lady compared to all the youngsters on wikipedia.SriMesh | talk 01:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. It does take a while to get used to writing for Wikipedia - it's just that if an article is not fully up to standard, it's not fair for me to give it full points. I'm not going to look at every GA and read it through looking for errors, but if I see problems from a 15-second glance at the article, that is when I would start taking off points.
That being said, please don't be discouraged - you are doing good work - probably the best that CRWP has seen in a long time. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:GA Reviews

Thank you for the heads-up on my GA Reviews. In future reviews, I will make sure to be more strict with standards. Dough4872 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Wow, I totally forgot about the undo button because I had gotten used to rollbacking vandalism. Thanks for the heads up there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Freewayguy

It appears that this user returned using this account, User:Achraz to evade his block as i suspected it and it looks serious to me when he is not signing his comments. --I-210 (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough evidence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect

Hey, I need a page semiprotected - Big Whiskey and the Groogrux King. Users keep vandalizing the page, including putting on a fake tracklisting. --Son (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done; next time, if you need an urgent response you can go to WP:RPP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure where to go with the request. I'll keep that in mind for the future! --Son (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Roads

I think I have developed a way to automatically import news from wikinews for the portal, but I have left the manual entry as you are still using it for the contest. Should I leave it? The portal is at peer review right now before going to be nominated for feature portal.SriMesh | talk 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can if you want. I see a lot of non-road related articles there, though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Junction lists in California

Any junction lists you could suggest that it would need some fixing? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't really worry about those. What makes or breaks an article is the actual content in it. The reader probably won't go through the junction table and look for errors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
So I guess you're saying that we are fine on the junction lists then. But I did notice (and I'm sure you noticed too) one problem: Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) changed the heading on some articles from "Exit list" to "Exits and major intersections". Personally, I would've renamed it to "Major intersections and exit list" (as this was my original idea in my first place), but per WP:ELG I would just say "Exit list" if most of the route is a freeway and most of the junctions have exit numbers. Can I hear your input? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Major intersections. If the route is solely freeway then it could be "Exit list." Under no circumstances should any combination of the two be used. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
How about: if more than 50% of the junction lists have exit numbers and are freeways, can we just say "Exit list"? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a bad idea. Case in point: SR 99, which is over 50% freeway but has a significant portion that is not freeway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
So are you saying that if nearly all except one or two junctions are interchanges withe xit numbers, you would still like to name it as "Major intersections"? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No, but if a route has a significant portion that is not freeway, then we can't just call it "Exit list". --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but in SR 99's case, a significant portion isn't a freeway, but the coresponding article's junction list has most of the junctions in freeway segments. I would be more inclined into calling it an exit list. Anyways, what do you plan to do now that some freeway junction list headings are titled "Exits and major itnersections"? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 20:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset) Of course there will be more exits than junctions for a stretch of highway / freeway - what the table mostly is should not be a factor.

Unfortunately, there are several editors who have a slight distortion of USRD standards and who then go and spread this distortion across USRD articles. (In fact, some editors still don't realize that it is "Route description" not "Route Description"!) The California project is notorious for this. I would (kindly) tell Zzyzx11 to revert his changes. If he does, problem solved. If not, I'll go back next week and straighten it out - I'm currently in finals week and my time is extremely limited. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well at least the CASH project is getting better. We have over 20 GAs, all the junction lists are (nearly) done, and I think we may be able to focus on other aspects of the article. I believe why the CASH articles were such a mess in the first place was because the articles were written by people not familiar to USRD. Those people often write stuff about any recent events that happened on their local routes or freeways, and failed to follow the standards because they either misinterpreted them or never knew the standards in the first place. I wouldn't blame them, especially when USRD standards change.

Anyways, good luck on your finals! I have to study and prepare for my AP exams, so I'm quite busy as well as you are. :) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

US SR 78 ACR

Hello there. Clarified what I had meant on the one point. ...Changed my comment to support...Good job SriMesh | talk 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 301 in Florida

I noticed you rated my article on U.S. Route 301 in Florida as a stub. It's pretty big for a stub, so what exactly kept it from being rated as a start? Was it the lack of an intersection list, or something else, or more? ----DanTD (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is a mess. The infobox is not done completely, you called the section "Route Description" instead of "Route description", too much bold text, "Speed trap alley" is a nonstandard section, etc. Please read WP:USRD/STDS; articles do not become "Start" merely because they are long. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the title for the Route description. I'm still indecisive about which junctions in the infobox I want to get rid of. "Speed trap alley" may be non-standard, but it describes a noteworthy aspect of the road. As for the bold text, as you can probably guess, most of it is a substitute for links that don't yet exist, or won't exist. ----DanTD (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:MOS: Bold text has a specific purpose, and is not just fancy formatting. There is nothing wrong with a red link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw nothing there on the use of bold text. I had to go to this section to find out. Nevertheless, I like to keep the use of redlinks at a minimum. I am considering replacing one or two with a possible wikilink if it's available. I hope you don't think I'm complaining about the rating as a stub-article. I just wanted to know why, and if and how it could be upgraded. On the other hand, there are a few railroad station articles I worked on that definitley no longer belong in the stub category, and I've been waiting a while for reassessments of them. ----DanTD (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell curve grading

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to note your concerns with this article. While it looks like this one may be okay, I think it's very important to keep an eye out for infringement, and, for what it may be worth, I appreciate your doing so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pasadena Freeway

I thought you were fine with the county columns; you didn't do anything about it to the other CASH articles. 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No; I just didn't have the time to go back and fix it. The HTML comments were informative and I don't see why you needed to remove them. Finally, I don't see why you had to change the links; WP:R2D says not to fix links to redirects that are not broken. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
1) I-210 (talk · contribs) originally changed the links to redirects that aren't broken. I just finished the rest of the work as he didn't change all of them (and quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. Per WP:R2D#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading." 2) The "<!-- -->" are an unnecessary waste of space. 3) You just changed to "To I-210 / Green Street", implying that the junction goes to I-210 and to Green Street, when it is actually Green Street that goes to I-210. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I-210 is a very bad example to follow. Please see WP:USSH - links like that are perfectly acceptable. The HTML comments provide information. We don't need to worry about taking up space on the server (text takes up so little space anyway). Regarding #3, I see your point, but I don't have the time to do a partial revert. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh, this guy Mgillfr (talk · contribs) is revert warring on Interstate 5 in California, reverting legitimate edits on all articles that i made for you about the removal of unnecessary county lists tables such as California State Route 13 with improper explanation. I'd say warn him to stop or get blocked. --I-210 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I-210 (talk · contribs) keeps making inaccurate edits to junction lists, and preventing the display of county abbreviations in the county columns. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mgillfr stop copy cating at me. --I-210 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, I-210 continues to edit my former accounts' user pages. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah Mgillfr, i removed silliness on your use of Template:Retired and removed trolling and/or harrassment on your user pages. --I-210 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Last answer to you Mgillfr, you don't evade your block while your sockpuppet accounts are blocked. --I-210 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, this is a special case for mine, and it's not like you didn't evade your blocks either. And you're not allowed to edit other users' pages. That was how you got blocked. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
These accounts User:Eaxgwb6643 and User:Sliketree are your sockpuppet accounts, Mgillfr. It is unlikely that you will ever return at all here on Wikipedia. --I-210 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed yet I-210, I've been here on Wikipedia as Mgillfr for about four months. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Case in point: according to Rschen7754, you're a "very bad example to follow". -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I-210, please let me be the administrator. Do not touch Mgillfr's pages again or you will be blocked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mgillfr, my advice to you is to stay as far away from I-210 as possible. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, will do so. Apparently, I-210 has been annoying me a lot. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar
U.S. Route 50 in Nevada passed FAC, thank you for the review and copyedits. It would not have passed without them.Dave (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Idea for AFD portal

How about for featured pic, something like a picture from Four Corners Monument or something, with a caption of , "This is not a road, I don't know why it's hear either". I'm at work on a break, or I'd help out. Dave (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have something lined up so I think I'll just leave it for now. Maybe next year though... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Alberta Shield on US 89

Both File:Alberta Highway 2.svg and File:Alberta provincial highway trailblazer.svg are licensed free content on Commons.

It safe to use the {{Jct|state=AB|Hwy|XX}} template. --Svgalbertian (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that Canadian highway shields are *not* public domain - the templates you tagged your images with are incorrect. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The possible problem here is with the typeface, which was specially made by the province (and thus may be copyrightable, unlike a typical font). --NE2 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The image you currently have linked (File:Alberta provincial highway trailblazer.svg), is in the exact same situation. The advantage of using the template is if we need to change the image, we can do it across many pages dynamically. I am of the strong opinion that the current Alberta wordmark in the shield is not copyrightable. If you disagree you should remove the current image from the page.--Svgalbertian (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

This article [3] contains off topic information since I reverted NE2 changes as it is not part of the article. I-210 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This information is on topic and relevant. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, if NE2 does something you don't like, don't complain to me. The majority of the time I will probably back him up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
James Lick Freeway was supposed to be on this article and not on this one Bayshore Freeway. --I-210 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, some users must have removed it for a good reason. --I-210 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"Some users" = you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No. --I-210 (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
James Lick Freeway is not part of Bayshore Freeway. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to deal with this bickering. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Junction list notes

When a junction has been destroyed, should we list it in the junction list? If so, should we label in the notes column as "Closed" or "Demolished"? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically, yes to both. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Xclamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! '
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Interstates

Part A

Come on Rschen. Think. 35E&W are part of I-35 (35E even has 35's exit #'s) they should be on the template. THey should not be in pink but should be there Amlnet49 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No. You're linking to disambiguation pages, and 35E and W function more like 3 digit interstates - they are NOT primary. The end. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
They actually are primary, though I'm not sure if or how they should be included. I think the idea is to have everything without a "parent", hence the inclusion of 238. --NE2 05:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Part B

I have an idea for a new template. Wanted to run it by you before posting on the discussion page of the template.

edit
Main Interstate Highways (multiples of 5 highlighted) 		Interstate Highway marker
4 5 8 10 12 15 16 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 29 30
35 35E 35W 37 39 40 43 44 45 49 55 57 59 64 65 66 68 69
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 (W) 76 (E) 77 78 79 80 81 82
83 84 (W) 84 (E) 85 86 (W) 86 (E) 87 88 (W) 88 (E) 89 90
91 93 94 95 96 97 99 (238) H-1 H-2 H-3
Unsigned  A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 PRI-1 PRI-2 PRI-3
Lists  Primary  Main - Intrastate - Suffixed - Future - Gaps
Auxiliary  Main - Future - Unsigned
Other  Standards - Business - Bypassed

es:Plantilla:Interstates hu:Sablon:Az USA autópályái pt:Predefinição:Interstates simple:Template:Interstates zh:Template:州际公路系统

Absolutely not. This is a solution looking for a problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:NJ GAs

Thanks for telling me that. I misinterpreted what was said at WT:USRD in saying "All the NJ ones have mileages that need to be removed from the lead". Dough4872 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CA SR 78

I understand that Wikipedia standards are greater than WP:CASH and WP:USRD standards, but I still don't see how an FAC "defines" the Wikipedia standards. (copied from my edit summary on SR 78 article). Furthermore, you might want to re-evaluate your statement "because FAC says so", because it was just Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs) who suggested this move and he clearly stated in his comment that it was an "IMO". I don't see a clear consensus for this move except between you and Davemeistermoab. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 04:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC works a bit differently from the rest of Wikipedia. Basically, you have to do what they tell you to get your article to pass. If they tell me something that is totally wrong, I will object, and usually that works. But please leave the article alone; you're not helping at all by objecting to everything FAC does. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we at least work towards a compromise? At least keep Davemiestermoab's notes, but also keep the italics? In my opinion, Davemiestermoab's version of this can be misleading. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have any complains about Dave's recommendation, you can comment at the FAC. (Typically Dave is willing to amend his remarks if there are objections). If you don't agree with something at the FAC, the proper procedure is to then complain on the FAC page rather than revert war over the article (as that will get the article disqualified from FAC due to its instability). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

SR 78

Congrats on the FA! Not only is this another excellent article for USRD but it must feel good after dealing with an ACR spanning five months and some editors active at CASH (ahem) to finally get it passed. CL — 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling there was a bit of CASH slipped under the table --NE2 01:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh NE2, that one made me laugh for quite a while...good one! :) - CL — 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: I-215 CA

If not all the route names are supposed to be in the infobox, then I think you also have some work to do on the pages for I-5 in CA, US 101 in CA, and maybe even Routes 39 and 91.

And what good is an infobox if someone takes the info out? Angelsfreeek (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there is one article that follows CASH and USRD standards exactly, and that is California State Route 78. The end. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has a new name...

I-15 (talk · contribs) --NE2 10:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. I guess it's easier to type. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Road Research Facility

Any reason to remove the reference to the Minnesota_Road_Research_Facility on the I-94 page? Espurgeo (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It really belongs on Interstate 94 in Minnesota. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

So sorry. I was worried since I am the only member of my wiki. I guess as a crat you are required to say spam. Forgiveness? -Amlnet49 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: UAA

I view UAA as place to report usernames that must be blocked immediately, and if that's not the case, I'd rather AGF. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you AGF with a name such as that? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 76.23.236.188 (talk · contribs)

I've dealt with this user before. He seems to make a few constructive edits, as well as some that he "just made up in school one day". There were quite a few of both in his recent contribs, so I'm not sure which one(s) you were tagging as vandalism.

I do apologize, as somehow I missed the message saying is was editing a previous version of SC 9. That being said, there was no reason to entirely blank the junction list out of the infobox. Apologies if I left a few too many; I figured a good start was to just leave the US Routes as a default since I'm not familiar with the area. (As an aside, the page you linked to in your edit summary says no more than 10 junctions, not 5-8.) -- Kacie Jane (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Never having been to South Carolina I don't know which junctions are more important than others; I'm forced to randomly pick them or to just blank the whole thing. In regards to the page I linked, yes, pages can have as many as 10; however, we prefer that 5-8 should be used when possible. Sometimes there are instances where you have to include 10. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Rico Highway 52

Tell you what Rschen7754, even I was surprised. I had no idea about what happened until I found out that in a short moment that I went to my daughters house, my son (User:AntonioMartin) used the computer and protected that page, doing so under my name without telling me! Man, did I get mad at him and straighten him out after you told me. I unprotected the page, Thank you for telling me. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I only edit what I think is right to change. Give me examples and I'll give you a reason for the change. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont-Count 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

go ahead...

...and block that IP--you have my blessing! ;) Drmies (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD possibility?

Hey Rschen, since you seem to be on call, let me ask you something if I may: I just removed all the "references" from Earth Whispers: The Quest for Biovision--did I shoot ourselves in the foot by removing the possibility of a CSD-G11? There is nothing notable about this book. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter - you can try tagging it for speedy or prod. It could go either way - I don't have enough experience to tell which would be better in this scenario. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 55 Mississippi River Bridge

Not that I am offended, but you undid my edit to the Interstate 55 in Illinois page about a new $560 million Mississippi River bridge. I have checked the source for the information, and while I have not read the whole article because I would have to pay for it, the source is nine and a half years old. I do live in the St. Louis area, and I have kept up with the current construction updates; the new bridge to be built is the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Bridge, which will carry I-70, not I-55.

I am fairly sure that Interstate 55 will not have a new bridge over the Mississippi with Interstate 70 getting one, but I wanted to check with you first before undoing your undo of my edit.

The official website for the new bridge is here: The New Mississippi River Bridge Projects

Thanks, --Dy 162.5 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just be careful that you are not speculating in future sectons. Many of the Interstate articles have people's speculations and predictions. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't talk about predictions - WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted page

Hi Rschen - I encountered this at CAT:PROD and went to delete it until I noticed that you had already deleted/restored the page. Unless it was a mistake, it shouldn't be deleted again per the PROD rules. What happened here? Jamie☆S93 21:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I somehow thought that this had occured just today. It was actually from June 6th, as I look at it now. If this was simply a mistake, deleting a nominated prod too early, then I'd assume that it's fine for me to delete it now. I don't see anything about this on your talkpage, but I'll probably keep back from handling it, just in case. Best, Jamie☆S93 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I deleted it too early. You can go ahead and delete it if the time is right. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks for letting me know. Jamie☆S93 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 40 in California

Interstate 40 in California's exit list's notes column has too many "Former US 66". Should I include directions for former US 66 in the notes column? Or is the list better off that I ignore the directional signs? Mgillfr (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the worst problem the article has. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I like to work with exit lists a lot more than the actual articles. Why do you think they say that editing Wikipedia is only a hobby? Mgillfr (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

bad idea?

You commented a few days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Back to the proposal for a New York State roads Task Force that forming a NY task force would be a "bad idea". Would you please respond to my question there, or here, about why? I am interested in understanding your perspective, before taking action to create the task force. doncram (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Rschen7754,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 5 in California

That links to a redirect. Mgillfr (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Also note that in your last edit you moved the state law section (F/E and scenic highway) to the incorrect location; the standard is to put it in the first paragraph of the route description. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect? So you're saying almost all of CASH is incorrect about that? Mgillfr (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The articles are incorrect; WP:CASH is correct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Mgillfr, per WP:LEAD (a wikipedia level policy, overrides anything that any wikiproject says) the lead section of an article is not to contain new material. It is to be a summary of the rest of the article. As such putting this in the lead violates wikipedia policy, not just WP:CASH.Dave (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

good work

Just wanted to say nice 1 for leading the way in engaging with the oppose opinions on the RfA. Some opposers try create an impression that its counter productive to do that, but I really think if it hadnt be done we might not have got the right result. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

US 199

I didn't create those articles... stupid Twinkle... --NE2 06:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed Twinkle doing that :( Well he'll find out soon enough. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop

Stop reverting my edits without your reasoning; otherwise I see that you just revert me for your personal enjoyment. You did not reason to all my edits. Furthermore, you don't own the SR 78 article. Mgillfr (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

{{jct}} versus {{Jct}} is negligible. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And overlap postmile fixes are negligible too? Your revision introduces the version in a way that if you add or remove any references, the superscript links will not work. Mgillfr (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the time to restore your fixes when you bundle them with controversial edits; if I did that I would have no life of my own to do my own constructive edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to work on your reading comprehension too, because "measured from State Route 86" does not mean that the distance along SR 86 was measured. --NE2 04:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mgillfr has spread that garbled statement across CASH. (Concession: I thought about this earlier too but didn't say anything. I probably should have, but I was probably trying to deal with more Mgillfr problems, so this one slipped by.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That wording was per Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs)'s request at WT:USRD (check the last archive). I applied Davemeistermoab's changes to those other CASH articles aside from SR 78. Mgillfr (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you realize why it was incorrect? If not, please stop editing. --NE2 05:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, my suggested wording was "postmile reflects distance along SR 78" Dave (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And you suggested this, too. 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mgillfr, do you realize why the wording you placed in articles is wrong? --NE2 08:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, NE2 (talk · contribs); how is my wording wrong? My statement just says that some postmiles are measured from SR 86. Mgillfr (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Measured "from" implies that the postmile is the distance from SR 86; obviously this is incorrect. If you cannot see what the problem with this is, then there is a serious problem with your editing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because I'm only in high school English classes. But those are postmiles measured from the distance of SR 86; there's no SR 78 postmiles throughout the SR 86 overlap. Mgillfr (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, I could make this distinction (which involves basic English knowledge) since I was in junior high. We are writing an adult-level encyclopedia here; not one written for high schoolers. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote US 199 (CA) hopefully so I can get better at my reading/writing skills, which I'm perfectly aware it needs work. Maybe your reading/writing skills are perfectly normal. Mgillfr (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's an idea that would actually help CASH: Pick a CA stub article and improve it to C or B class rather than creating some junky article to improve and thus creating more work for the project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, improving an article such as US 199 would mean more progress for CASH, not more work. Mgillfr (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Improving an article, yes. Not chopping it up. Not making a content fork of it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I never chopped up the main US 199 article (except remove the junction list where it's reduandant to state-deatils); I was just trying to improve the California portion of it. Like I said, I'm only interested in working with CASH. Mgillfr (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Then just add stuff to the U.S. Route 199 article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
So why do you guys allow the existence of the article Interstate 78 in New York, a very short mile segment? Suppose you guys will add New York material to [[Interstate 78]/ article? Mgillfr (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That is specifically notable because you can write about the Holland Tunnel east entrance and the *freeway* segment of I-78, as well as the 3dis of I-78 in NY that are not connected to I-78, proposed extensions of I-78 through Manhattan that didn't go through, etc. (That is my understanding of the situation; I'm not a NY editor but have studied I-78 NY in general). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 266

I might do a minor re-write on SR 266, but do you believe this is a good source? [4] Mgillfr (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes... but for a decent article you should use more than one source. WP:FAC and WP:GAN don't like one-source sections, especially if the one source is by the state DOT (FAC doesn't quite understand that stuff written by a state DOT doesn't have the issues of WP:SPS.) That being said, just about anything is better than what the article has now, so you don't need to worry about multiple sources; just don't plagiarize or quote extensively or make a list instead of prose or write the RD backwards or do something else that would require a rewrite of the section. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How I normally re-write a route description is that I look at the picture of the map, and by doing so I state the direction of the alignment, then list junctions and communities the route passes through. Is that an ideal way to do so? How did you do it for SR 78? (Please note that I'm trying to be a better writer since my writing skills are not strong.) Mgillfr (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I typically write it by noting major things that one would see if they drove on the road - junctions, communities, rivers, general landscape, etc. There is a balance between too much detail and not enough detail that you need to find; mine tend to be on the short side, but some editors write way too much (so they start talking about power lines and stop signs). The other thing is that you don't want to make the description monotonous so the reader just gets bored reading it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 15:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In this case, SR 266 is a relatively short route, but other than driving on flat land seeing the distant mountains of the Owens Valley, there's only one junction - California State Route 168 in Oasis. So therefore can we give more detail such as listing those stop signs you mentioned? Mgillfr (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How would you source the location of the stop signs? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Try Google maps street view, or link to any possible photos from AA Roads. Mgillfr (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt Street View or AARoads have anything on SR 266. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
AA Roads may not have many pictures, but Street View does cover all of State Route 266.

I rewrote the route description of California State Route 266. Would you do peer-review on it for me if you want too? Mgillfr (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not bad; a few things I noticed: Try not to use numeric phrases such as "about 1.8 miles" in the RD. You can say about two miles, but don't throw numbers with decimals into the RD unless you are talking about the length. (We had a lot of problems when someone did this in NJ). Junctions is not a verb. Just say "northwest"; you don't need "to the direction of". History - check WP:MOSDASH out, I think there are some errors. Also, try to use something other than "In ___,"... you use it too much. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754/Archive_11&oldid=1166514310"