User talk:Washuotaku/Archive 2018

W.T. Harris Boulevard (Charlotte)

If W.T. Harris Boulevard (Charlotte) is redundant to another article, the best thing to do would be to redirect the page to the better article, rather than just deleting the page (or its talk page). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into that, thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I see light rail running in Blue Line Extension. So why you delete it? 2606:A000:6604:D700:D8A0:8FD7:D4BC:EDBA (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in a testing phase, it is not opened to the public. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Washuotaku, I was looking over the page Political Party Strength in North Carolina, and I saw that you were one of the people that had added Party Affiliation in the General Assembly, and I was wondering where you had found that information. Thank you for your contribution and thank you for the help! Imckdonnelly (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question on sources

On the page Political Party Strength in North Carolina, it looks like you had added in information about state legislative party control. I am working on a project on party control and was curious where you had gotten that information from. Thank you! Imckdonnelly (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I did was correcting the fields so they don't break; a lot of the information is already sourced on Wikipedia and others put in the details. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolinas HealthCare System University Suggestion

I see that you removed my edit from Charlotte, North Carolina wherein I added Carolinas HealthCare System University as one of the hospitals within Charlotte (revert reason: here is no separate building or anything, it is just a program at CMC). It would be appreciated if you looked at the referenced citation before reverting edits. Thanks! -TG 05:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see of the wikiarticle, that now works by link, it probably should still be removed. There is little to no beneficial information, I'm surprised it wasn't speedy deleted yet or merged into the main article for its lack of content. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is the Charlotte, North Carolina#Hospitals section. Even if there isn't a wikipedia page, I still believe that the University Hospital belongs on the Charlotte page -TG 06:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I previously discussed merging all of the Carolinas HealthCare System articles but another editor and I had concerns (see discussion on my talk page). Now that the corporate name is Atrium Health I think we could merge all of the Carolinas HealthCare System hospital stubs into a single article, Carolinas HealthCare System hospitals -TG 06:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate monuments

I was hoping you comment on a matter at the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials talk page.--MagicatthemovieS

I responded. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and people do look at your user page

and then find themselves wondering if the "of course" in "Washu is of course from the anime series Tenchi Muyo!" is done just to make them feel ignorant? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected my poor grammar. -WashuOtaku (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a "thing" about certain words and phrase and "of course" happens to be one of them. So I think I should be apologizing to you for being cranky. Which I am. (apologizing & being cranky). Carptrash (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I wrote that years ago and rarely make updates to the page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also ended up here :D Λυδ α cιτγ 03:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Sou are now edit warring on a page subject to discretionary sanctions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&oldid=prev&diff=844722980. Put back my edit which is designed to put the ref in and prompt additional expansion. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this time we are at a disagreement and I have explained thoroughly why I have removed your edit twice today. I encourage you to read why rational and if you decide to add it again to at least improve upon it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wil-Cox Bridge

There are two reasons I added historical information. Three, if you count the fact that this information was included in the groundbreaking ceremony. You seem to be fine with the idea that the location has been a major crossing for hundreds of years, so how can we properly include that? Second, the bridge is now significant as part of a series of parks, which relate to the history. Maybe the parks themselves are notable enough for their own articles, but I'm not sure. At this point some of them are only proposals.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine if you want to expand the article to incorporate it as part of a park as well (I'm aware a name has not been finalized as of yet), which would then work well discussing the history of the area including the civil war battle that took place there. It would be setup similiarly like the Blue Ridge Parkway where we discuss the road and then the culture/historic impact of the area on the park-end. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very unwarranted and offended by this. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing to be offended by. It’s a purely informational message. You’re reverting two Users who are adding commentary about Silent Sam (a relatively high-profile flash point in recent US racial politics.) That means you’ve experienced conflict in the area, and need to be aware of the sanctions. Virtually anyone who has edited anywhere in US politics articles has received one of these. It really is just a heads up like the template says. I didn’t give one to Gamaliel because I’m 99% positive that he is formally aware of these sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for explaining this to me in better detail. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan memorial in Concord, n.c.

I’d like you to reconsider this. As I see it, it is a Confederate monument in spirit, and is within the scope of the article. Here is the inscription on it:

IN COMMEMORATION OF THE "KU KLUX KLAN" DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD FOLLOWING THE "WAR BETWEEN THE STATES" THIS MARKER IS PLACED ON THEIR ASSEMBLY GROUND. THE ORIGINAL BANNER (AS ABOVE) WAS MADE IN CABARRUS COUNTY.

ERECTED BY THE DODSON-RAMSEUR CHAPTER OF THE UNITED DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY. 1926

(soutce: https://www.facingsouth.org/2018/06/group-behind-confederate-monuments-also-built-memorial-klan)

deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: In spirit does not mean it actually is. The article is setup to purposely be narrow to the Confederate War monuments and memorials, we should not expand outside of those parameters to incorporate other things because of relationship, otherwise the article becomes something completely different and easily a mess of just stuff that offends people. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Washuotaku. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point

deisenbe (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About senkaku islands

I want to ask why do you must change “china” to “they”??? Yanru P (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Blvd

Thanks for correcting my edit, I was thinking along the lines of county roads. Leuqarte (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty sections at North Carolina Highway 119

Respectfully, there is no point in keeping empty sections with empty section headers. Anyone who hypothetically wants to expand the article in the future can just... go ahead and expand it, section headers or no. Keeping them in there adds no benefit and just makes the article messier for readers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Expressway directionality

I saw that after I edited the Triangle Expressway article infobox to have north/south termini instead of east/west, you first reverted it and mentioned signage, but then went back to my version. What signage in particular were you referring to? Was it something along the length that refers just to the Triangle Expressway name and not either route number, or did you confuse the part of 540 posted east/west between 147 and 40 as indicative of the whole length?

Also, I agree with reverting my NCTA maintenance edits. I knew it's part of NCDOT (unlike, for example, the PTC or NJTA), but thought that it was distinct enough to specify in the infobox and that they in particular were responsible for maintenance and not NCDOT as a whole. Roadsguy (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have flipped on this in the past too, if you look far enough in the history. The problem I ran into with the Triangle Expressway was that NC 540 was signed differently than normal conventions; NC 540 goes East-West then switches North-South (while other beltways in the state keep one set of directions like North-South on I-485). So do you plan ahead when they will likely go east-west again or keep north-south, at the time there seemed to be no correct answer. Of course, now we have a "trans" to use for this situation, thus if it does do a switch later, we could just use that, if necessary.

Yea, I believe originally the plan was to have a separate agency like they do in some of the northern states, but cost saving won out and made them a division of NCDOT instead. The NCTA is pretty much just the administration of the tolls, transponders, billing and debt; everything is by NCDOT including if it gets built through the funding formula or not. --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary routes of a different type

Is it general consensus that only routes of the same type as the primary route are considered "auxiliary routes?" For example, you removed the "auxiliary route of US 17" infobox detail from the NC 417 article. I figured that since it is numbered as an x17 and functions as a half loop around it in the same way that routes like I-240 (Asheville, NC), I-495 (Wilmington, DE), etc. do, it is functionally an auxiliary route of US 17, albeit of a different route type. By this logic, NC 295, NC 452, PA 581, and NY 895 are auxiliary routes of I-95, US 52, I-81, and I-95, respectively. Obviously this doesn't apply to any matching numbers (e.g. PA 895 and the former PA 295). I understand, though, if the consensus for Wikipedia is that these aren't considered auxiliary routes. Just looking for thoughts from a more experienced editor before I try to start a larger discussion or continue editing this way. Roadsguy (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that an auxiliary routes for an Interstate or U.S. Route will also be a three-digit Interstate or three-digit U.S. Route respectively. State routes do not play with the same rules (some might, but generally no). We do not identify auxiliary routes for North Carolina state highways, nor do we do cross route systems; the state commission of that time abandon the system by the 1930s. I guess the best example to use is NC 225, which was established along the former alignment of US 25 around Hendersonville; it is not considered an auxiliary because it is its own route, however because it was routed along former US 25, it is part of the US 25 category in Wikipedia (I removed NC 417 from US 17 category for the same reason, it is not a former routing of US 17, it is its own route). If we start identifying state highways as auxiliary of other routes, then its pretty much guess work by Wiki editors with no source of fact and can be easily disputed. Again, NCDOT does not use this system, they are just giving the highway a designation that makes the most sense; NC 44 was used temporarily because it historically was a route in eastern North Carolina, they could have picked NC 170 instead (its available). it is just a number and should not made more than what it is. Does my rambling make any sense? --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of civil war monuments

I’d like to restore the section on destruction of monuments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&diff=874107581&oldid=874107295

Of course these monuments are mentioned later, but the fact that people have felt driven to actually destroy monuments, which they could not legally alter, I feel strongly needs mention by itself. deisenbe (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list and being repetitive does not help the readers. Also, both the Durham and Silent Sam statues have not been destroyed, both of which are in storage waiting for a decision. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Durham statue is beyond repair and no one has spoken of any plans for it. deisenbe (talk)

If it was beyond repair, they wouldn't keep it in storage; it can be fixed but do they want to fix it. Alas, that is a whole different matter. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]