User talk:SPUI

[1]:

FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. Mindspillage

second everything Mindspillage wrote. - SimonP

we do of course expect admins to use proper judgment and interpret disruption according to community norms, subject to review at WP:ANI. —Dmcdevit

encourage restraint by all. Matthew Brown

Roads that are limited access but not freeways

• Long Island Motor Parkway
• Bronx River Parkway
• Because they run through parks:
  • Soldiers Field Road
  • Memorial Drive (Cambridge)
  • Riverway
  • Charlesgate
  • Femway
  • Jamaicaway
  • Arborway
  • VFW Parkway

Of course none of these are the lowest form, as it is rather hard to find confirmation of those and have them be "notable" enough. Here are some that are probably not "notable":

• Hudson Drive north of Route 57 east of Route 10 in Massachusetts - "The Company also conducted traffic counts at the Hudson Drive access, but stated that it did not conduct an LOS analysis since Hudson Drive is a limited access road with limited associated turning movements (Exh. HO-E-71)."
• [2] could help.

I've decided to try limiting myself to one revert per day per article. We'll see how it turns out. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not applying this to actually incorrect information, like on Rickenbacker Causeway and State Roads in Florida. 3RR for that. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered to leave them alone, they wouldn't be incorrect as often as you state. Of course, all you have to do is supply a reference supporting your contention from a source that doesn't contradict itself - something that FDOT does with some regularity in southern Florida. Needless to say, the FDOT map references that have been provided by my colleague get in the way of a good story, don't they? 147.70.242.39 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that may need checking

• 1964 state highway renumbering (Washington) List of Washington State Routes Category:Washington highways Interstate 75 Interstate 93 Rickenbacker Causeway State Roads in Florida Special:Contributions/147.70.242.39 Special:Contributions/B.Wind Special:Contributions/Roadsock (created while I was blocked and made edits in a manner that might seem like my sockpuppet) A6 autoroute (France)

People that may be interested or useful in highway debates/"votes"

• Rory096
• Darkcore (moved Ontario a while back)
• ShakespeareFan00
• Jaranda

FUCK YOU WIKIPEDIA

That didn't take long. Jimbo's fucking up the article space now. He has jumped the shark something fierce.

Probation violations

I am blocking you for 24hours for disrupting DRV--Doc ^ask? 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one that was disrupting it, by removing an active discussion. Jimbo is fucking up the encyclopedia. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand?

• 01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Brian Peppers" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)

You can write about Brian Peppers on any website that will let you, but the guy who runs this website won't let you. Why not? That's his business. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is too big to be run by one man. I question not his legal right to run it but his "moral" right. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what I wrote in response to another guy who made a fuss about "Jimbocracy".

GFDL means that you can download the whole encyclopedia (see here), install the software (it's easy, I'm running a copy on my laptop) and just open the thing up. What you do with the site is up to you. Jimbo can't touch you as long as you comply with the license.

So if you wish, you're free to take your contributions, and mine, and those of everybody who has ever contributed to Wikipedia. But this particular website has its own rules, and its own management.

There is nothing to stop you taking the entire content and (if you can convince them) every single editor, and giving them a new site that Jimbo doesn't run. Jimbo would be left high and dry. So why not give it a go?

So, you have a legal and moral right to the encyclopedia. If Jimbo's site isn't the right one for you, take it and go with my blessing. --Tony Sidaway 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that it's not that easy. There is a collaborative nature to Wikipedia that would not exist, as no one would move to the new site. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the reason no one would move to the new site is because most actually either agree with Jimbo or (the great majority) don't give a flying fuck about the issue? If some issue was really opposed by a significant amount of editors, it would be easy for a fork to get critical mass; that's a great sword of Damocles over Jimbo's head. --cesarb 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No one gives a fuck until they get fucked. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. There was a 2:1 consensus to keep the new article, but Jimbo deleted it anyway, citing the older articles which were rightfully speedily deleted as garbage, and ignored the most recent consensus to keep the valid rewrite of the article which contained sources and was written in an open, encyclopedic tone? Silensor 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do Me A Favor

SPUI, remind me to comment on this later on how fucked up Wikipedia's inner workings are right now. I'm taking a break. Karmafist 13:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Roadcruft?

Thanks for your comment on my talk page regarding the road numbering system in Hong Kong. I just wonder how did you come to think that I'm a roadcruft? Deryck C. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

Sorry, SPUI, I know it's a bad time, but do you have a source for Image:Cartery.jpg? It's a fascinating picture and I'd like to preserve it. It's probably not public domain, but it wouldn't be hard to make a fair use rationale if we had the source. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it. "The Frances Loeb Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in this collection." They have no further information. I say if Harvard and the LOC can use it with a {{fairold}}-style license, so can we.

I may have also come across this image in a planning document for the Artery, which may have been at MIT's Rotch Library. Somehow I have a date of 1930, which would put it in "Report on a thoroughfare plan for Boston. Prepared by the City Planning Board. Robert Whitten, consultant." by the "Boston (Mass.). City Planning Board.", "HE356.5.B6.A35 1930". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect--I'm glad you found it. I've updated the image page and left the tag for now, though I'll snoop around a little more and see if there isn't precedent to declare it public domain. What makes me uncomfortable about the tag is that it's too high resolution for fair use, so by using it as it is, we're kind of assuming it's public domain anyway. Which I think is fine, really. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Chick Bowen 06:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that low resolution is not essential to a fair use claim. It is but one aspect, one point of argument. I'd suspect, with the date and the source, that no copyright renewal was ever performed and thus the document entered the public domain at some point since. However, proving a negative is tough, especially for images which may have been published in more than one place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I give a fuck

And the best way that you can actually change things is by toning it down a little. Are some people acting like total pricks? Yes. Are some of those people admins? Yes. Is there another option open to Jimbo in the short term? Probably not.

Right now the "middle managment" of wikipedia is running off the rails. Well, a few of them anyway. All the pointless bullshit over the last couple of months is just a symptom of a very few bad apples stirring things up. You know, like you.

Because we can't fix the plumbing while the house is on fire. So if you could please not get yourself blocked again in a day or two, stick around and try to just stay unblocked that would kick arse. If we could stop fighting over stupid stuff like userboxes and Brain Peepers, things which are so fucking trivial I want to poke out my eyes, we might be able to fix some other issues.

brenneman^{T}{L} 05:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is Jimbo crossing the line into deleting articles "fucking trivial"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• The action isn't trivial, but the article is. Really, out of the million articles we have, or even out of the thirteen good ones, this one means nothing. Just like any one particular user box doesn't mean anything. But when pushed by continuing stupidity all around, whose side do you expect Jimbo to come down on?
• We've got a classic "freedom fighter" cycle going on here. A few people like things fucked up. Some of those people because it gives them an excuse to use sysop powers to bash heads, some of them because they get to throw userbox petrol bombs. As long as there keeps being an "enemy" than there will keep being a problem. Use the judo-Ghandi approach, man, and quit giving people targets.

brenneman^{T}{L} 06:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is no more trivial than any other. Someone seeking information on a "notable" internet meme should be able to find it here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting content is the house on fire. And Aaron, you're the fucking problem here man. Quit pretending you are any part of the solution. Grace Note 12:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Content isn't deleting itself, you know, someone has to push the button.

• Grace, I'm well aware that you seem unable to look beyond my deletion of the Brian Peppers article. I'd encourage you to actually read what I said about why I did it, note that I made notices in all the appropiate places when I did so, and have continued to actually talk and listen ever since then. I've tried at every juncture to get people to actually talk (not vote!) about the issues.
• I'd also encourage you to have a look at my non-admin actions since promoted, to note how many articles I've removed speedy tags from. I'd also like to think that there is a place for people who disagree but can do so reasonably. I've never made any bones about my personal feelings about this article or user boxes, but if you don't pay any attention to my unflagging defence of discussion and mutual respect, that's not my problem.

brenneman^{T}{L} 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and everyone will get the chance to sink the boot into me in a couple of months anyway. I promised I'd open a self-RfC on my three month promotion anniversary and step down if I'd lost the public trust. - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your block

I've lifted your block for now. Please read WP:AN/I#SPUI_blocked_for_probation_violation before proceeding. They'll just block you again if you annoy them any. Haukur 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:HHOF

I don't pretend to be an expert on hockey or anything even vaguely related to sports, but could you perhaps explain what's so inflammatory about this one? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a userbox. Doesn't T1 effectively apply to all userboxes? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUN or something --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In Any Case

Don't let the fuckers get you down. Only you can get you down, the fuckers just give you a push. I'm glad that you're back, Wikipedia would be alot worse off without all you add to it, in my opinion. Don't let some dipshits steal your contributions away from everybody else. Karmafist 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Forum to discuss Wikipedia

I don't know if you've been invited yet, so let me hereby invite you to the Wikipedia Review forum to discuss Wikipedia. It has just moved to its new site, at http://www.wikipedia review.com/ (fucking spam blacklist --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) and your voice would be welcome. I might not agree with the whole GNAA stance, or some of your actions, but you're a critic just the same, and I think that you could contribute. If you are already posting under an alias, then ignore this. :). User:Zordrac 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Snorlax --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error on your userpage

"This user page has not been censored in any way." Don't think this is true anymore. Ashibaka tock 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

California State Highway 17

Please, let's not play this game again. You need to establish consensus on the talk page before moving this article. Nohat 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 15

Your continued deletion of the infobox on California State Route 15 could be considered vandalism. Unless you can justify this activity, please cease. - Chadbryant 07:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Because California doesn't like you doing that doesn't mean the Interstates do, either. Please read WP:BRD before you go recklessly changing I-95 exit list, especially since the article survived AfD this week. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Routeboxca

You sure you nominated the right template? The only edit by you in the history is when you placed {{tfd}} on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see; the template you modified was a meta-template of the template you nominated. Bizarre. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your nomination of this sure seems spiteful to me since your RB is being readily rejected by the wikiproject...JohnnyBGood 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read, WP:CIV, and WP:Infobox. One applies to your behavior, the other does not agree with your reasoning against the infoboxes.JohnnyBGood 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Countries, Elements, Chemical compounds, Greek gods, Languages, Digital Cameras, locomotives and many others are just as long if not longer. The only CA highway ones that are possibly too long are CA 1 and 99. And that can be fixed by limiting the list to major interchanges.JohnnyBGood 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to respond to that last comment. If you're going to discourse in that crude and ill mannered way then your opinion is worth nothing to the project.JohnnyBGood 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Funny how WP:CIV deals with it directly. I suggest you read it.JohnnyBGood 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• It also says that your point will likely be ignored by most users who come across it if you are vulgar or profane... And for the record, I'm not belittling you, it's a constuctive criticsm, one I believe has been brought to you many times before and obviously ignored to no benefit to you.JohnnyBGood 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe, Maybe not... but it'll be had to find out if no one is listening don't you think? JohnnyBGood 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted your edit since I don't think the template qualifies for speedy deletion for it's divisiveness. Thanks. - Bobet 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mystified by El Camino Real, East Bay branch

Do you understand this? I can't figure out what this East Bay branch is, or where it is supposed to go. (It seems to include sections of San Pablo Ave. through Oakland and Berkeley.) The California Highways site does nothing to clarify this (not to mention that they sound like idiots—"the El Camino Real", indeed!) How in the world is this considered part of the Sonoma-to-San Diego route? I can see why you're having difficulties editing this.

By the way, I must say I like your attitude, and share parts of it. This can be discussed later (or not). --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "red link" (language faux pas); doesn't that just beg for someone to come along and create Yet Another Spurious Article? Jus' wondering ... --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AN/I comment on you

Rschen raises some valid points about reverting and civility, here. I don't think you're violating your probation, but surely it'd be better to avoid such disputes if at all possible, lest the arbcom start tacking on civility parole and reversion limitations for good measure. As regards disputes in the scope of WP:NC/NH, I'd imagine it would be preferable to wait for some consensus on these issues, first. Alai 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see you (and all contributors) a bit more civil, I must say, "Oh, eat my penis" may be the funniest incivil comment I've ever seen. Ral315 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Hi! I just noticed one of my pics was nominated by you. Thanks! Only took me almost a year to notice! (and that was by a fluke also!). --Rebroad 21:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SG rail

You kind of broke this turning it back into using a metatemplate. Formerly optional arguments are now required and show ugly in pages that didn't supply them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now fixed it: templates with defaults on the metatemplate need to have default arguments of nothing provided from the calling template. Otherwise, an undefined value is passed as a string of the template name with squigglies around it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list

All you pointed out was that it should be split, not that any exit lists already existed. If you had something to add to the conversation then, why didn't you? —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You said the article "should be split". Had you said that it had already been split across—I was going to quick-count them, but the mileage list is overlaying the TOC right now—x number of states, I would've changed my vote to split/redirect to the main article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the TOC and length table overlaps, that's happening in Firefox. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 - blank row at the bottom of the length table?

Is there a reason you restored the blank row to the bottom of the length table? It's unattractive. Was it meant to have the totals in it? —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Map redraw request

For Image:Putnam Division map.png. On the Yonkers (Getty Square) Branch, there should be a station named "Mosholu" between the junction at Van Cortlandt and Caryl. See for instance Joe Brennan. There should also be a line running a little ways west from Yorktown Heights to Mohansic Lake (lasted only six years; abandoned when proposed Mohansic State Hospital was cancelled). You can see what I believe are bits of the grading here if you look closely. Much appeciated. Choess 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm not seeing any bits of grading in the historic map. Typically, since they were done from surveys, not aerial photographs, features didn't show up accidentally. The only thing I can see that resembles an abandoned railbed is this little bit of road. Switch the Theme to Image and it seems to cross the lower tip of Crom Pond. RussNelson 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Railroad Map

Were you working on a New Jersey railroad map? The PNG seems to be missing in action. I'm considering doing the same thing for New York. See New York Railroad Routes or Railroads of New York State. First I need an enumeration of all of the railroads. How did you arrive at yours for New Jersey? RussNelson 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

VA 895

"Federal statute 23 USC 129(a)(1)(A) indicates that federal funds may not be used for an Interstate toll-road. Thus, toll-roads using no federal funds and freeways of any funding source are eligible for Interstate designation, but toll-roads that use federal funds are not. In this case, $9.28 million of the preliminary engineering (out of a total $324 million cost) was funded by the federal government, and the project ultimately opened as a toll road, disqualifying the road as a bearer of an Interstate shield."

Therefore, VDOT used federal funds for the project, no matter what it was for, they used it. You can read that and see that it's not I-895 because they used federal funds, and opened a toll road. --MPD01605 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One of a kind

You are one of a kind! --Thorpe | talk 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zen

Learn how to meditate man!--Jondel 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Zen garden at the Ryoan-ji

Route moves

Spui, can you please explain why you keep moving California State Routes? We've already established that doing so breaks the disambig and search.Gateman1997 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on the technicals, but rschen would know. Also there is consensus and the WP to consider. Both of which are against these moves thus far but discussion is ongoing. Wait until the discussion has closed please before you do anything.Gateman1997 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

Are you ok with this California State Route 85?JohnnyBGood 22:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro Map

SPUI, you are so good at making maps for the transportation articles. [3] So, if you do get a minute, can you replace the Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png Moscow Metro map with a public domain version. The one that is on there now is a copy vio. Thank you so much for your other contributions and thank you in advance for this map. :) --michael180 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am just checking back to see if you are still interesting in helping Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Thanks --michael180 20:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California)

Ahem... I wonder if you might be able to find time to read WP:3RR? I've given you 12h [4], in case you're busy William M. Connolley 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A birthday present for you

• 02:00, 9 March 2006, David Gerard (Talk) blocked Gateman1997 (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone))
• 02:00, 9 March 2006, David Gerard (Talk) blocked JohnnyBGood (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone))

I mean, I don't know when your birthday is ... - David Gerard 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But at least you figured out that Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood have the same one. Well there's something. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston Trolley Maps

I was just wondering a few things about you old trolley route maps on Commons. First, how come you mark the Watertown and post-Heath Street E branch as "still active" in your 1940 vs Now map? Second, are the numbers you give actual route numbers from back in the day or are they just the numbers of the current bus replacements... If they were the original route numbers it would be interesting to know that 90%+ of those route numbers are still in use as the bus numbers.

State Route 15 (California)

You tagged this page for speedy deletion, with the reason "So California State Route 15 can be moved here, as the name is "State Route 15", not "California State Route 15". Gateman1997 edited this specifically to prevent such a move.". Unfortunately, CSD:G6 allowing for such deletions requires that the move be uncontroversial, and since someone disagrees, this doesn't qualify. You must list this request on WP:RM instead.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that you can move pages onto a redirect page. Stifle 17:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gateman1997 specifically edited and then reverted this page to prevent moving over it. In my view, that is very dickish. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. However, I specifically can't speedy articles to facilitate a move unless it's non-controversial. You will need to take it to WP:RM. Stifle 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

City Names

I see from some of your recent edits to some road pages that you are putting in links and then redirects as "City Name (ST)". This is not according to accepted WP guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America) which is "City Name, State Name". I know you are an advocate of the parenthesis disambiguation technique, and I agree with you basically, but this is NOT one of the uses for it. --Censorwolf 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see you are making redirects, but they are unecessary, since the only reason to create the re-directed articles is so you can link to them from another page. It would be better to link to the proper, aka real, page. Just follow the guidelines when you add your links and you won't need to create the redirected artcles. --Censorwolf 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to create a disambiguation page and a redirect when the city page already exists as a properly named page just like every other city page on WP. Are you now going to put a dismbiguation page for every city page that exists in WP, or are you just working on CA for now?

All of those pages you are creating as "City Name (ST)" should be deleted and the links to those pages from other articles (if any) should be replaced with the proper WP article name. What you are doing is meaningless and obviously a solo mission against WP guidelines. What's worse, you have apparently created most of these pages simply because you referenced them on Talk:Interstate 280 (California). In one case Palo Alto (CA), there is already a disambiguation page Palo Alto (disambiguation). Please refer to the guidelines above and unless you can justify a reason for an exception, stick to them. "there is nothing wrong with linking to redirects" is not valid reason for creating one. --Censorwolf 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This shit isn't worth a response. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

CA Highway Moves

I disagree with your nonconsensus moves of the entire CA Highway system. Within the next few hours I intend to take action to rectify this (not sure how yet).

But to your credit I do acknowledge your questioning of the sockpuppetry. It is good to know that at least someone is standing up for what is right. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then there was a lot of consensus. Here there is not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry... I had just joined wiki when that happened so I wasnt really sure... okay well there was no consensus against your page moving then. There is now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen7754 on this one. This topic is still under debate so all these moves you are doing are in bad faith. You appear to have no respect for the voting process since you have not waited for the results and especially since it is titling away from being decided in your favor. These moves should all be reverted. If the consensus is to use the names you prefer then we will make the moves at that time. --Censorwolf 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminal Island Freeway

Why did you redirect Terminal Island Freeway to only State Route 103 (California)? I get sources that the freeway's southern portion is suppose to be signed as State Route 47 (California) as it heads toward the Vincent Thomas Bridge [5]. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your merge for the sole reason that the freeway consists of two routes. Using your same logic, Santa Ana Freeway would merge into Interstate 5 even though the freeway technically is signed as both the 5 and U.S. Highway 101. Ventura Freeway would merge into State Route 134 (California) even though it is signed as both the 134 and the 101. And Hollywood Freeway would only merge into State Route 170 (California). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have been picky, but here in California, the Southern California freeway names have historically been more popular and more well-known than their actual state routes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

highway 85 rename

There was a very clear vote to leave this article titled as it was. Please don't unilaterally decide to ignore completed votes. I have put the page back to the agreed-upon name. Elf | Talk 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was voted to not rename to "A" doesn't in any way mean that everyone thinks it is OK to rename to "B". Elf | Talk 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you choose to revert the routebox against consensus too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New York

We've asked time and time again, stop making controversial page moves with no consensus! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Except at WP:NC/NH we have a (narrow) consensus. But still one. Until the matter is decided though please don't move the pages. Even if it is decided against your point of view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Eat my penis. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, a comment like that that could be taken the wrong way. Let's all be nice. -Will Beback 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What, are you a homophobe? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub template should go after categories

In this edit you moved the stub template before the categories. This should not be done, as the stub category is less important than the others. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How very odd. Further up may talk page you will see flamage because stubs went to the end, which is what has always happened if the "sort" option is on. I shall investigate further. Rich Farmbrough 18:42 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I've found the reason, the template was "California State Highway Stub" instead of "California-State-Highway-stub" I'm fixing about 100 pages, and moving the sutbs to the end. In at leat one case [6] it has been in the wrong position since day 1. Rich Farmbrough 12:39 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Comment from Mike Dillon

Placement of the visible content of the stub template is more important than the ordering of the categories, so I disagree. If I see changes moving stub templates below categories, I will move the stub templates to the bottom of the article content. Thanks for the note, but I won't be following your preference. Mike Dillon 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Urls

Ooops, I try to avoid that sort of thing, and succeed 99.9% of the time. Thanks for teling me though. Rich Farmbrough 19:15 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I thought you meant part of the URL. These refs, are very tricky, because they are scattered around the article, but they to look and work much better than the old style. Is this version acceptable? If not, revert if you wish.. Rich Farmbrough 19:27 11 March 2006 (UTC).

I-95 Exit List (2)

Talk:I-95 exit list

Med Cabal

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

Do not remove other user's votes on the matter. It is considered vandalism and is against policy.JohnnyBGood 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN/I. Do not modify my vote again.JohnnyBGood 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles River

Thanks for #Crossings. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

State pages

Please don't create separate state pages for each Interstate per WP:IH. If you got consensus I wouldn't care so much. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 16 in Georgia? Interstate 78 in New York? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? Those links get redirected to Interstate 16 and Interstate 78 respectively. Seem to work fine. --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't care about redirects, but I don't want someone to create the worthless articles described above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Worthless content on Interstates?

Could we possibly put it up for other wikipedians to debate instead of just deleting? Or would you prefer it be moved onto the I-64 page? (Personally, I think the Long Distance signage is rather pointless as well, but nonetheless think it should remain).

Any opinion?

--Mkamensek 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK...I have an option. Create an article called Interstate System Oddities and move all the content there?

--Mkamensek 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New CA Interstate Shields

Is it possible to have these shields use Series D for the INTERSTATE text. Most signs in California use this instead of Series C. I know this is a minor point, but just to keep the shield looking as close to the real things as possible. Joydawg 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, fuck it. I just looked at the CA spec and they use both Series C and Series D for different sizes, even though probably 90% of the real shields use D, so I see no point in sweating the spacing (there's great variation in spacing on the real shields). The numbering looks fine and the colors match the MUTCD ones, which are both more important. Are you making each one by hand? Joydawg 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ocean Hiway

When you have a chance, will you please take a look at this one? I started it, but I feel that it needs some attention. Your magic may be just what it needs. Thanks! Mark Vaoverland 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image problems

Hey, if you could help me figure out the correct license for that image, that would be amazing. The message from the copyright holder is on the talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Thanks --MPD01605 13:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations!!! I hereby award a spinning Barnstar to User:SPUI for his dedication in editing articles related to California State Highways. Keep up the good work, and don't let the crits from others let you down. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

Thanks for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Offer to compromise: These are the pages (at their names specified by the WikiProjects) that have been moved to some variant of "State Route x (California)" without consensus. (Although I really shouldn't have to here, it's vandalism). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Can we agree to not move any more CA pages until the mediation case goes through? Otherwise I'll have to protect or go to WP:RPP since now it's just making a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Until we come to an agreement through mediation, that is. I mean, why can't we just have a truce until an agreement? Otherwise we make a mess of things (redirects, wrong links, histories, etc) and get ourselves blocked by admins. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So you;re not willing to truce then? It would be a lot easier on all of us- we could actually get back to content. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

MUTCD-compliant speed limit sign SVG

Can you make a MUTCD-compliant speed limit sign for Speed limits in the United States? The current sign could use improvement. Thanks! Nova SS 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CASH

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions, or move on to something like Uncyclopedia.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your mom's getting old. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both people here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all good with the WP:CASH shortcut, but the whole thing about profit could be misleading for some people. After discussing this with CVU, it's best if you just hold off on the "profit" joke, at least on the project page. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

US State Highways

Because that article was appropriate for that template. It was a list, and therefore, should incorporate the link to the other state lists. J.Steinbock 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you in that sense. However, it is a system which should include interstates and highways. Because you are the editor of the article, you may delete the template. : ). J.Steinbock 06:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

March 19

I don't know what's gotten into you, but the behavior is unacceptable, so --

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Uh... blocked for what? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks. I think your responses to Rschen7754's messages were thoroughly unacceptable, and in addition, your edits that added "profit" to Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways can't be construed as anything but vandalism. If you have good explanations for your behavior, please go ahead and give them. --Nlu (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call vandalism I call having fun. What you call a personal attack I call a your mom joke. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not amused. The request to unblock is denied. --Nlu (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, you're not the only admin here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, if other admins want to review what I did here, that's fine. In fact, I already asked for that myself (on WP:AN/I). Meanwhile, the unblock request is (again) denied, and your talk page is going to be protected in a second. --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not amused either, this request for unblock is denied -- Tawker 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No is No, continued placement of unblock on this page will result in the page being protected -- Tawker 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now now, I've reviewed your edits and this block is warranted, please wait it out, Wikipedia is not a place for jokes and you have engaged in this sort of behaviour before. Please stop -- Tawker 08:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Came across this a little late. If you get blocked in the future for a joke that doesn't break 3RR, feel free to send me an e-mail and I'll review whether the block was a good idea. Ashibaka tock 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're unblocked

Your block was harsher than what was needed here, IMO, so I have unblocked you. Now, please, please don't make me look like a fool by immediately slapping more jokes on the road portal. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I had already stopped a while before I was blocked; I have no intent to restore the "profit".

03:39, 19 March 2006 Brian0918 blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (the 2 things he did don't warrant a 1 week block)

03:39, 19 March 2006 Brian0918 unblocked SPUI (contribs) (blocking for less)

02:32, 19 March 2006 Nlu blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Hopefully I'm not getting into a wheel war here -- but behavior today is unacceptable, and 1 week seems to be a good block length)

I'm not seeing your unblock - did you misspell it? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your block was shortened

Please stop placing ubblock notices as they are disruptive -- Tawker 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG subway bullets

I've created a set of SVG subway bullets. I only uploaded 1 so far. Please check out my fair use rationale and let me know what you think. Also note that rather than going by the colors on the current GIFs, I'm eyeballing them. (Those colors are just bad conversions of the CMYK colors, so they're desaturated and don't look like they appear on the signage.) If you think this is a good idea, I can send/upload all the images to get feedback. – flamurai (t) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, are there any historical bullets (in the same style)I should make? e.g. 9, K, and retired diamond services? I don't know the subway history that well. – flamurai (t) 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think. I'm especially happy with how they look at small sizes e.g. Rutgers Street Tunnel – flamurai (t) 10:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Interstate blank.svg

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Interstate blank.svg for speedy deletion with the reason "just the empty page here, not the image on commons". However, "just the empty page here, not the image on commons" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 13:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This message also applies to Image:Interstate 75.svg, Image:Interstate15 Ivanpah Valley.jpg, and Image:Interstate15 Ivanpah Valley.jpg. Stifle 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'll just remove the category and leave a blank page, as images shouldn't be in categories like that, whether or not they're on commons. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stifle 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't they now be deleted because they're blank? Common sense would seem to say that having no page is better than having a page - deletion policy doesn't seem to deal with the case of a description page for a commons image. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. However, what it does mean is that if you type in Image:Interstate blank.svg into the search box, the image and its description page come up. Try that with Image:Star Trek TNG S1 WO5.png (which is only on Commons), and you get an error. For the moment I'm inclined to keep the blank pages, if only for that reason. Stifle 14:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Please don't make major changes to 300 pages without consensus, thanks.JohnnyBGood 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, as you know, your proposed forced road naming convention failed to reach consensus by any reasonable metric. Therefore the only consensus that applies to California State Highways is the one at WP:CASH. Please discuss your proposed mass name change there. Gentgeen 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI time to give up. You have 6 people telling you you're wrong now... STOP violating consensus.JohnnyBGood 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Or thirded I suppose. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CA Shields

Nice job. They look very good. Joydawg 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, do you think it's possible you can manually center California 4, so that the vertical bar in the 4 is centered? Joydawg 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps just nudging it slightly to the left? I see it under the O in the picture, so that the empty space on both sides is a little more even. Joydawg 20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation for 1st roundabout in the US.

You had placed a note on an entry of mine in Roundabout about the first roundabout in the US. Well, long story short, while it is old (1930) and a roundabout I still can't verify it was the first so I removed the claim. Thanks for note and I should've checked my facts closer. --Costoa 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

If you attempt to bring in Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets like you did over the weekend you will be reported. JohnnyBGood 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about no? I always use edit summaries on articles, but there's no reason to use them on talk pages, as everything is signed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems that you are using edit summaries only 55% of the time. :) Thanks for not getting mad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 14U

Good catch on this odd remnant road. Who knew Caltrans was THAT wasteful that they'd full on sign a road they don't intend to maintain any longer.JohnnyBGood 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Without commenting on Template:People stub which looks to me like a simple case of "SPUI's doing it so it must be destroyed" I don't suppose you could humour me with a potted history of stub sorting, or at least point me to a page that expains this black art?
brenneman^{L} 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. It still looks like lunacy to me, but I'm an unrepentant user of {{stub}} for anything more complicated than {{human-stub}} or {{animal-stub}}, leaving the sorting to those with the variety of OCD that makes it fun for them. I do enjoy it when they duke it out, though. Rocket-stub -> space-craft-stub -> satelite-sub -> rocket-stub...
  brenneman^{L} 06:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi SPUI! I can't seem to figure which page should be moved over to Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes to fix the cut-and-paste pagemove you noted - there is a redirect Wikipedia talk:Infobox which points to it. Since I'm not so informed regarding those pages, I'm going to leave the page deleted as is. At your convenience, could you take a look and perform whatever move needs to be done? If you need me to restore the page again, feel free to let me know. See you around! --HappyCamper 13:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little out of it...I've fixed a handful of cut-and-paste pagemoves before, but this is the first time I've sort of jumped into the middle of something where I'm not sure what the source or target is. I just deleted the page to make way for whatever page move that was required. I can see in the page history that you moved something about an hour after you left me this message, so I guess the pages are they way they are supposed to be now? --HappyCamper 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

wikipolitics all over

give it up with california state routes I think... I've stopped working on them because every time someone tries to better standardise things it causes a big uproar -_-. Good work, though! (I think Route XX (California) makes more sense, so i'm not trying to be an ass to you, just felt like leaving a note thanknig you for your ceaseless efforts in the face of a stubborn crowd -- keep up the good work) atanamir 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT Subchat. Please be more civil here.

Subchat is a relatively small bunch of people who discuss trains, and often goof off and flamewar. Wikipedia is much bigger, chaps don'r know each other as well, and the upshot is that being annoying can result in more bans and blocks here because admins don't know you as well. Being friendly helps, whether on Subchat OR Wikipedia, but even more so over here. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (New Brunswick Station)

padding on ca/sr box?

Do you think the ca/sr infobox looks a little crowded? I think a little table padding and/or a line break between the shield and the "Route XX" heading will make it easier on the eyes. atanamir 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah it's better! Cool. thanks atanamir 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case U.S. Roads

Concerning this case:

If you need a fast assignment of a mediator it generally helps when you are willing to mediate in a different case. If you can't mediate yourself maybe somebody else interested in the case would be willing to mediate and thereby increase your chance to get a mediator fast. --Fasten 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

If you are interested in this case please leave a statement at this page for the mediator. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1964 state highway renumbering (California)

Is there a reason why you elected to use 'state highway' here instead of 'state route'? Should we move this to state route renumbering to better conform to our 'state route XX' argument? atanamir 03:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. I see. I'll be working on an equivalent list for WA. 1964 state highway renumbering (Washington). Great idea for the list, by the way. ^^ atanamir 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Does washignton refer to them as 'sign routes'? This PDF(the first link on the article's future site) seems to indicate that they do. atanamir 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems that WA/SR-10 is not longer the oroginal routing as defined by the 1964 reumbering, should i describe on the article as it was originally routed in 1964, or how it is now? Also -- the renumbering document itself doesnt' seem to list US and Interstates, should i imply these from the numbers that exist today? atanamir 05:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:US state highway renumbering 1964 is this useful at all? I don't know if all states had some massive renubering in 1964, but it looks like it so far. I'm not sure about the island / territories though. atanamir 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry, i forgot -- how do i put something up for speedy deletion? Thanks atanamir 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I've completed a new 'series'-style template for the renumberings page and plopped d on the old template (although it seems to have marked your talk page for deletion as well). I think it looks nice; but i had to move the wikisource box to the bottom on a few of the pages beuase it looked ugly wiht both tbls and no space inbetween. atanamir 05:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I was considering that kind of navbox, but the possiblity of a lot of states and making it big made the series-type box seem like a better choice. atanamir 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WASH

Don't tell me you're going to do the mass page moves and force the "State Route x (Washington)" convention on this WikiProject. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we don;t know that for certain. If you do mass page moves, another California will happen. I could care less about the redirects though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, at least no one has started revert wars here. As an unbiased opinion, though (since you know i support the state route XX (stae_name) notation), I don't tihnk you should try moving any of the washington pages yet until CA has been cleared up. Rschen has a;ready asid he doesn't mind redirects, so we can just leave them as such until something has been decided. atanamir 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1 hour block

I've blocked you for an hour until another admin can review the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sup blocking a user you're in a dispute with. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You were moving pages and you were told not to. Hence the hour block until someone could look at it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say until full consensus is reached, all article names stay the the way they are (no matter how messed up it looks now). We're all getting sick and tired of trying to move things back to "California State Route Whatever" Let's work on getting everybody to agree on something with the names, instead of making WP:CASH look like they don't know what they're doing. If I were able to only allow you to edit the Wikipedia namespace only, I would. But I can't. So the block stays. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You speak as if WP:CASH knows what they're doing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We could ask you the same thing... but then we'd be guilty of WP:DICK behavior. Obviously you're not above doing that.Gateman1997 22:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pot/kettle. — Mar. 27, '06 [00:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Under the terms of your probation, I am banning you from any page moves on transportation-related articles for 48 hours. Please heed this ban while we discuss this situation. Also, let me know if anyone else has reverted your moves, because I've warned them at WP:AN/I not to do so. Ral315 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just page-move protect all the CASR articles? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit un-wiki for me, but a possible outcome if people continue edit-warring. Ral315 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also there's 200+ articles in CA, and we might have to protect the WA ones too, and this has the potential to spread to the 2,000+ U.S. Road articles. I mean if ordered to I could help but still... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps everyone should review Wikipedia:Protection policy? - brenneman^{L} 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A precedent which might concern you deeply

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#AndriyK banned. This was pointed out to me by an Arbcomm member. I find it quite relevant to the current dispute. — Mar. 27, '06 [00:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I believe I recall an admin telling you that any moves of these articles should be subject to RM, so it's hardly dickish since you should be doing an RM for ANY of them in the first place ;). Gateman1997 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WASH

What is this? Do you really want to start a war in Washington? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK SPUI

There is a set of compromise offers on the Mediation page. I'm going to ask you nicely. Could you please make no more edits to state route pages until we can achieve a sort of consensus? Thanks in advance. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not being specific, I did the same to Rschen, I meant to ask if you could not make any edits related to the dispute, i.e. moving California or Washington SRs. Also please don't make any like changes to other SRs either, while they make sense to you and others, they are highly likely to get people pissed. If you could hold off on redoing infoboxes and moving pages until we work out the dispute, it would ease tenions a lot. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 04:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40

It took a moment to find it. But you should be unblocked. BTW, can you fix up U.S. Route 40, and maybe make a SVG of the Historic Route 40 sign? The infobox doesn't have its mileage. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll just leave them with ??s. I don't have specs for the sign, as they are privately owned by a group who wanted to keep US 40 in people's minds (by posting a sign at nearly every phone pole and intersection). I only traced it from a pic in Photoshop. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm in the middle of a bunch of things at once. For starters lets do Route 40 (which looks like the one I have, with US in the upper section with old style numbering. And Route 395 in Nevada. (Since Interstate 580 (Nevada) replaced the old 395 in Carson City. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember seeing the old style Historic US 40 signs a long time ago, but it's funny how the ones I see around town look completely different.

As a matter of fact, you may want to look at this.

User:SPUI/SR 599

I have to admit, your idea for an infobox with a map in it intrigues me. If more details are added to the map, such as major surrounding and intersecting routes and it's zoomed in a little more this would have my support. I'm a visual person by nature so I like the map idea, and if major routes intersecting the article route were added to a map, then that would satisfy my desire for major intersecting routes being in the infobox. Gateman1997 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

United States railroad maps on Commons

SPUI thank you for uploading all these excellent maps. There are so many of them though that they were overwhelming the railroad maps category. I'm sorting this by moving you images to the subcategory United States railroad maps, this in turn will need subcategorising but as I don't know anything about rail transport on your side of the Atlantic I'm going to leave that job to someone else.

If you have any more US railroad maps to upload then it would be great if you could sort them directly into commons:category:United States railroad maps (or a subcategory of it) rather than the main category. Thanks Thryduulf 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

MA WP

Not a problem, it's less work for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

MA route lengths

I noticed that you adjusted the route lengths for the infoboxes I added. I've been getting the lengths from MassGIS roads data, although I am not sure if those are updated. Why is there a discrepancy with the distances from the Location Survey Sheets? Polaron 05:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Portal US Roads

I've reverted your blanking of this page. I'm going to assume by now you know blanking pages, especially after they've been kept by consensus vote is vandalism. I'll also assume I don't have to warn you that blanking is a blockable offense that will be enforced should you do so again.Gateman1997 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding your disruptive behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI. You may comment there in the "Response" section. —phh 02:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Knowing your infinite capacity for restraining yourself when someone says something stupid, why don't you take the above page off your watchlist? If anything crops up that you should respond to, someone will tell you. - brenneman^{L} 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:N9jig-il-shield

The above template has been nominated for deletion. I know that you've made a lot of our highway marker images. Is there anything in particular about these images that means that we need to use the ones from that website, or is there something else that makes this template useful? Jkelly 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I can think of no reason whatsoever that an edit summary of "what the fuck" [7] is in any way necessary when doing an edit to an article. It would be a lot better if you would use edit summaries that are a little less offensive, thanks.--MONGO 08:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be a lot better if you grow up and do so quickly. I started that stub and it is on my watch list and I certainly agree with the edit itself but see no reason for that edit summary. I consider it disruption, I am an administrator and if it continues, I will block you from editing for 24 hours.--MONGO 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the terms of your Wikipedia:Probation, and because of your multiple uses of profanity in edit summaries, I have banned you from editing some eight articles and one talk page for one week, and from Wikipedia for two days, to run concurrently. See the log for full details, and--I address you with respect as one of our best contributors--please try to exercise more self-restraint. Edit summaries are particularly sensitive because they cannot easily be removed. --Tony Sidaway 11:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck. What the fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I apologized for the one that was a personal attack. The rest are perfectly acceptable edits. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI...you do excellent work I believe for the most part, and maybe I was over the top in my comment...I could have been kinder about it as it isn't that huge an issue. But again, I smply didn't understand that edit summary just to make a simple correction to some links. I am appreciative that you did the edit you did, and corrected the information. So I thank you for that.--MONGO 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's how I talk in an informal setting both offline and online. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI unblocking

SPUI - I'm unblocking you at the moment. As a courtesy to the rest of the Wikipedians who have been closely watching your edits, I must provide an explanation for this unblocking, and so, I will post something on your talkpage after I have written it up. It should not be too long of a message, but I want to make sure it's free of spelling errors. In the meantime, please add the article content that you planned to do.

Could I ask one thing of you though? Could you please tone down your edit summaries? :-) They don't bug me at all, but the reality is that the space that we all use on Wikipedia is shared, and...well, others might not be so tolerant and understanding of your behaviour. I know this might be asking for a lot, but for the next little bit, could you please do whatever you can in your capacity towards that end? It would help me keep your unblocking viable while I am writing an explanation for it. I don't want to get too involved with this issue, but I want to give Good Faith another chance here. Let me know what your thoughts are when you get a chance? --HappyCamper 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - you should probably post it on WP:ANI, as that's where the current discussion is. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you forget the autoblock, or are you writing the explanation first?

06:46, 31 March 2006, Tony Sidaway (Talk) blocked #130080 (expires 06:46, 1 April 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "SPUI". The reason given for SPUI's block is: "Two-day ban under provisions of Probation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests)

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I did forget the autoblock. I was caught up on something else. Unblocking that right now. Just give me a second. --HappyCamper 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it work now? I'll comb through the logs again just to double check. --HappyCamper 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, please remember that you are still validly banned from Wikipedia under the terms of your probation. Notwithstanding Happy Camper's good will wish to see you up and editing again as soon as possible, I think it would be unwise to start editing until he and I have chatted about his unusual action in overturning a ban enforcement measure. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Camper and I are discussing the situation. Meanwhile, he has suggested that I may reblock, and I am taking up his suggestion because I think it is fairer to you to remove ambiguity about whether you're allowed to edit [8]. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of making some corrections about which Interstate will be extended along current I-95 once the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project is completed. Does it really improve Wikipedia to block me? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been reblocked for "disruption" consisting of using "fuck" in edit summaries. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know...I will address that when I'm finished writing. So much is going on right now that I am finding it hard to keep up with everything. It is an exceptionally rare event for me to reverse another adminstrator's actions on Wikipedia, let alone one that was done with quite a bit of precision and reasoning - I'm sure you'll appreciate that this is something that I need to explain.

I hope you do understand why I gave Tony the liberal option of reblocking you, and I fully support him doing so - a lot of users have expended a lot of time observing your account and the activities associated with it, and this is partially in recognition of their jurisprudence.

I don't know whether what I have to say would make any difference or not, but for the sake of this project, I have to try and do by best. In the meantime, if you could co-operate towards this end, that would be great. Ideally, if everything resolves properly, it would work out for everyone - including you. I have confidence in this, and I want you to show everyone with an interest in your activites you do too. As I understand it, the block is only for two days - if you really want to edit articles, send them to me in an e-mail, and I will post them on your behalf. I suspect that it would probably be judicious to leave your talk page for a while just so the dust settles a little bit. That way, as one Wikipedian put it: "you'll be off the radar".

I know we haven't interacted so much on Wikipedia before, but before I go, can I get you to trust me on this one? I am setting aside a significant amount of my time usually devoted to research and writing papers to write something meaningful on your behalf and for Wikipedia, so in some sense, there must be something to it. Just be patient. I don't want to refresh this page quite so often, but I also don't want everyone to spontaneously write too much about something that can be given some time and thought. Today's drama was quite a bit of purtubation towards normal activites on Wikipedia, so natually, it will take a bit of time for everything to feel resolved. But do send me e-mails of your articles though - I know you appreciate continuity in editing - I won't be checking my inbox so frequently, but I will post them on your behalf when I do get them. Regards, HappyCamper 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's only six hours, I'll wait it out. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While I wait for Happy Camper to write up his unblocking reasons, I'll address the reason for banning you in more detail. I've banned you from each of the articles you disrupted, but only for a week (I could have banned you indefinitely but I don't see that this would have helped Wikipedia in the long run). Additionally you can be banned from Wikipedia for up to seven days "for each provocative edit" you make. Well use of profanity in edit summares provocative enough. But I'm only banning you from Wikipedia for two days. I think this is enough to send you the message that administrators do have the power to rein you in when you revert to acting like a small boy.

The articles you are banned from for the following seven days are as follows:

• Route_128_(Massachusetts) and its talk page, Woodstock, CT, Poweshiek_County, Iowa, Denny's, Helena National Forest, Virginia State Highway 288, Mountain_Dell_Dam and List of State Routes in Delaware.

To keep Wikipedia a civil environment, it's necessary to dissuade editors from using edit histories to make abusive comments. The thing that decided me to ban you in this instance was my observation of your reaction to a simple warning by MONGO. You obviously don't think there's anything wrong with what you did and you're likely to do it again if not shown that this isn't allowed. It's the way you have reacted in the past. Hence the ban. And indeed the second and third edits you made to your talk page after being banned contained profanities in the edit summaries, which were clearly intended as provocation and confirmed everything the Arbitration Committee said about you in putting you on probation [9] [10].

I think it's good that you apologised for the personal attack, and I'll take this into account in my discussion with Happy Camper. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that there's nothing wrong with using the work "fuck" in an edit summary, and I will continue to do so. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, that this is precisely the kind of behavior that the Arbitration Committee aimed at. Saying fuck in edit summaries in the circumstances will just get your ban reset for provocative editing. It's currently due to run until 14:03 UTC on 2 April, 2006, pending discussion with HappyCamper. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being a dick. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm discussing your case with HappyCamper with a view to reviewing the ban. If you try not to call me a dick in the meantime, it might give him more ammunition in persuading me that you are unlikely to make further provocative edits. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Apparently it wasn't only for 6 hours. What the fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm here, and I'll unblock. But you have to read this first: --HappyCamper 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear SPUI,

I know this might be trying your patience a little bit, but at your convenience, I really hope you get a chance to read this and put some thought into what has been written. This may be a bit verbose, but for situations like this, it seems reasonable to be transparent – my posts are cluttering up your talk page a little bit, so if you want to remove it after you’ve read it, feel free to do so; I won’t mind at all. I’ll try to address some Tony’s concerns here as well – after all, I decided to undo an action that was well thought out and in line with what would be expected of a diligent administrator carrying out duties on behalf of the arbitration committee. I’ll follow up with him afterwards, and if something comes up that is relevant to you, I’ll make sure you’re in the loop.

Out of curiosity, I found out today that you have over 54 thousand edits to Wikipedia – that must be at least 7 times the number of edits that I have! That is just amazing. On top of that, you have almost 40,000 edits to the main article namespace! I’m sure you’ve got something special in mind for that magical edit. I hope you can share with me what you have in mind.

To be honest, I know very little about those 54 thousand edits, other than the fact that you seem to be very adept at finding and cataloging information about roads and highways. I’ve always been impressed with how quickly you can find this sort of information – some of my friends in the transportation industry have come across articles that you have edited, and it always brings a smile to my face whenever I say "Oh yeah - it’s that guy, SPUI that made that page!"

I also looked at your block log, and your recent contributions – and it is very apparent that my regard for you is justifiably in the minority. For want of a better phrase, it is difficult for many to overlook and forget the numerous times activities from this account have been, well - a bit disruptive. I know you recognize this, and I also recognize that at this moment there is little inclination on your part to modulate these activities. I am not sure if I understand why that is, but my guess is that you feel that those activities constitute a part of your identity on Wikipedia – SPUI wouldn’t be SPUI without the occasional profanity in edit summaries, the abrasive tongue-in-cheek comments, and the brave, point-blank statements to administrators who you feel have done things out of line. This of course, does not even address your userpage! You know, it’s a creative way of bringing out that Maverick in you – and yes, that's a capital M for Maverick.

Sometimes, there’s a fine line between being consciously witty, versus being admirably stupid. Perhaps not the greatest dichotomy, but I have no doubt in my mind that for example, you deliberately line up a sequence of pages ready to move as quickly as possible just to test out that pagemove blockbot – I might be blatantly wrong, but it’s obvious! I think it is a way for you to be in implicit control – force a block, and a subsequent ruckus over at WP:AN over the correct procedures to unblock you – one Wikipedian inevitably brings up whether X, Y, Z is relevant in your case, et cetera, et cetera. You know, it’s sort of cute the first few times around – but after a while, it gets old – I think we need a better SPUI :-)

What does this really mean? I think it would be prudent to consider how patient and accepting the community has been of your whimsical activities. Despite some of the negative history you have built up, in retrospect, I think the site has given you plenty of chances to be yourself and for you to feel at home and valued. An intelligent editor recognizes this, and would not come back consistently to contribute if this were not the case. It would not be unreasonable for you to reciprocate some of this. Create for yourself an environment that is more conducive to article writing. In the end, I think what many Wikipedians want most from you, is just for you to give them some space – a little room for them to relax. For example, the space in the recent changes page is shared. Let me take your edit summaries as an example - what you write in them is broadcasted.

I won’t go into the philosophies of profanity or disruption – I will say that I know you can do better than that. At least, if you can't hold back, substitute one quarter fish, three quarters duck for your swear words of choice – I challenge you to be a just a bit more cunning. For someone with a prolific edit history, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that you add these higher grade alternatives to the archives. It makes people think, it makes people smile, it makes people notice you, and it makes people get off your case. That allows you to do what you do best - take care of those articles, and inject a bit of positive animation into a place that would otherwise be just an encyclopedia. We are talking about Wikipedia – so in your fullest capacity, could you make an honest and active effort to change your edit summaries?

There are a number of users on Wikipedia who have become progressively marginalized by the community over time, simply because few people have demonstrated to them on a consistent basis the respect they deserve. It saddens me when the community feels the need to place users on probation – partly so because it says as a project, we lack the capacity to reach out and address problems adequately and quickly. On the other hand, it also speaks volumes about how much it has grown over time. In some sense, we created a mechanism where it is justified to block and defer responsibility to the future when the block expires. Knowing that the system behaves like this, sometimes it is worth the effort to do that extra little bit so that you do not become a victim of it. It’s not worth your valuable time, nor anyone else’s. You didn’t create SPUI to be babysat like that duck in the perambulator. We don’t create administrators to do the babysitting either.

I have never asked this of a Wikipedian before, so it may be a bit awkward, but let me try this with earnest: could you make your account robust towards any attempt at finding a flaw in behavior, one that might warrant a block for say, disruption? "Disruption" is a term that is loaded with multiple and ambiguous meanings. Make an effort to be crystal clear regarding your actions – make it unambiguously constructive and healthy.

A while ago, I remember you asking someone a rhetorical question – whether blocking you would make Wikipedia a better place. To that end, I would arguably say that no, it wouldn’t. It would be another demonstration of how certain blocks can lengthen the duration of problems and defer them to the future. There was no doubt in my mind that you would simply perform the edits you wanted to do without intensifying edits, and then simply log off. It is not often that something is done to cap an ambiguous situation on the spot. Perhaps I am a bit slow and laborious - undoubtedly, not all of what is written here would be useful for you, but it conveys the reasons why certain things are expected on Wikipedia, and why it is to your benefit that you have that system on your side, and not the other way around.

I must head off now and look after other things, but I really do hope you read through this and give it some thought. It is important that you do, because I suspect the reservoir of patience that the community at large has shown towards you is running low. You deserve to be treated with respect, so towards that end, here is an olive branch to you. I will unblock Tony’s recent extension of your block, and leave Wikipedia for a little bit. I want to show the community that I can trust you, and that you can reciprocate this.

When I come back, I want to see a consistent change in behavior - simply put, whatever has been brewing has to stop, and it has to stop now. Show that you can end it, and the administrators can reciprocate in kind - immediately. I do hope that this is observed, otherwise, I have no choice but to liberally extend Tony’s block. Of course, we both know this is an empty threat if you could make an effort to use:

1. Edit summaries which are not intensifying, and somewhat modulated or toned down
2. Unambiguously constructive editing prowess in all your contributions

I cannot prevent another observing adminstrator from preempting some implicit decisions here, and if something occurs before I return, I will let things be, and simply walk off and do something else. This is the best I can do on your behalf, but to do any better, I need your help and co-operation. We can talk more later if you like, but I believe this to be unnecessary if I trust you. Sincerest regards, HappyCamper 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"I have no doubt in my mind that for example, you deliberately line up a sequence of pages ready to move as quickly as possible just to test out that pagemove blockbot." Heh, that's actually not true - though I may be relatively unconcerned with the blockbot, my main goal has been getting the moves done efficiently.

Similarly, with the recent edit summaries, I was in no way expecting anyone to find fault with them (except the one personal attack on Route 288 - that was uncalled for). That is simply the language I use in everyday conversations.

Anyway, I'll try to do as you ask. We'll see what happens. Thanks for the "olive branch". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to make a guess, right? :-) As I said: "I might be blatantly wrong". So much for the edit summaries - just be a bit careful and that should do the trick. Anyway, I just unblocked you - thanks for letting me know you'll give it a try. It really means a lot to me. I left a message for Tony first before the unblocking, which was why I am a bit late coming back. I really must head off now, so all the best to you that Wikipedia has to offer! --HappyCamper

Thanks for going the extra mile for this editor. I'll suspend the bans for now. If'll lift them entirely if he makes it through the weekend. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a brief followup I had with Tony after I left Wikipedia for a few days: [11] - thanks again. --HappyCamper 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts

The notices were there to prevent another Locke Cole incident from happening. It's there to prevent clueless newbies from getting unnecessarily blocked. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are county routes, not state routes. The ban was basically referring to state highways and state routes, not county routes, interstates, or U.S. Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself at {{Project U.S. Roads}} - it's state highways only. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You two leave me out of this. County Routes aren't State Highways, have a nice night.Gateman1997 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RI

I assume that you will be bringing your page moves to Rhode Island? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's mass moves with no consensus, I will do something to stop it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

colorado

Sorry, I just moved them all back to colorado state highway X becauase rschen protested. -_- thanks for changing the links, though. atanamir 00:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

on something htat is not controvertial

Do you happen to have the font for the state name in interstate shields? I want to make a i-470 SVG for colorado to replace that GIF.

Thanks atanamir 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• yes/no? (I assume you didn't see this) atanamir 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OH! i'm sorry -_- i'm blind atanamir 03:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A way to stop the moving madness

User:Rschen7754/HDD. Let me know if you have any suggestions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 3, but some odd number, and more than one. That way there's no ties possible, and an admin could always be biased. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So otherwise do you think it's fine? Or how else would you suggest to resolve this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then what are your other suggestions? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're not willing to compromise then? You're just going to go through and ignore whatever anyone else wants? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you conceive of agreeing to any method of resolving this disagreement that carries a chance, however small, of resulting in you not getting exactly what you want? --phh 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

I am finding multiple double redirects in your recent edits. Please go through and check for them whenever you can. Thank you. Moe ε 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whenever you get the chance, make the corrections so others don't have to. :-D Moe ε 03:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for pagemoves again!

April fools --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OMG {{unblock}} --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for M1-100

I sent a request into IDOT for the M1-I100 specs. There may be other avenues to this information, but they'll take a while. I'll let you know what (if anything) I get back. In the meantime, Bill Burmaster has plenty (300+) of pictures of signs that'll be close. In addition, the supplement indicates that the standard sizes of signs are 24"x24" (2dis) and 24"x30" (3dis). If necessary, I'll just measure the word "ILLINOIS" myself. —Rob (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense to include the link to Bill's page... —Rob (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, the IL MUTCD supplement seems to indicate just a sign, not the size, in spite of the fact I swear I saw a 24x24 for 2dis and 24x30 for 3dis. The wide 3dis look like they were made in 03-01, plus it fits in line with the request that state shields be the same size as U.S. Route shields in the 2003 National MUTCD. Honestly, since the use of square and rectangle shields is 50/50 on 1xx 3dis, I'd just pick rectangles for all 3dis since that's closest to standard. Illinois 171 is the latest extended 3di in Illinois, but even on the newly extended part, it's about 4 24x30 signs to 2 24x24 signs. —Rob (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, shield looks spot on. I'd hold off on mass production until I get some sort of response from IDOT; if not them, I dunno... clearly there has to be a company that makes the things according to some sort of spec (ad hoc or otherwise). A week from yesterday should suffice. Also, Indiana has almost the exact same layout, but it looks like the numbers and letters are a tad bigger and margins a bit smaller. I'll see if I can find specs for IN in my browsing... —Rob (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice

Since not all of the highway articles can be protected in a practical way, I will simply consider blocking people who move war over them for long enough. I don't see anyone move warring just yet, though there are a lot of moves (nothing wrong with a little WP:BOLD). Just be sure to avoid any editing warring over these articles. Your naming convention does seem more accurate and less redundant, but still...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway 1

How is the map on there? too much information? too little labels? too large? atanamir 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• hm, okay... colorado isn't as interesting (geographically) as washington -- should i put in some of the cities, then, to give the reader a better bearing on the location? Otherwsie it'd be just a grey square with a red line on it... atanamir 07:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

ps - wow do you sleep? isn't it like 3am in florida? haha

• • I've changed it... do you think it's still too big? I have a 24" LCD, so i can't tell if it's too crowded on a msaller screen. It seems fine when i shrink my window size, though. atanamir 09:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, now i know you won't like the new format i've been doing: U.S. Route 6 in Colorado. I added names for the counties... i just hadn't updated the maps for SH 1 and 2 yet. atanamir 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, is wiki being weird for you? a lot of images arne't loading up on my computer. atanamir 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasting time on Minnesota highways

Before I waste any more time doing Minnesota highways incorrectly, what should I call them? Clearly, Minnesota State Highway 100 is incorrect. "Minnesota Trunk Highway 100" is clunky, and "Trunk Highway 100 (Minnesota)" isn't a likely search term. Also, the existing (yet poorly populated) lists all say "Minnesota State Highway 100".

Should I even waste any more time on routeboxes, city lists, and shields when it's pretty much assured that I'm getting them wrong?

--Elkman - ^(talk) 20:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kosova

Thanks SPUI for your redirect to the Kosovo template. The point is that the Kosova template should not have been created in the first place. I am for listing it for deletion if it reappears and then permanently fix the redirect (if possible). The current state of the Template:Kosovo fulfils Wikipedia NPOV policy and it's true to the facts. The territory is a province of Serbia under United Nations administration, in the Resolution 1244 (1999), adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 10 June 1999, the UN reafirm its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and its sucessor state, the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, after the country changed its name). Regards, Asterion 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Image purging

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about that technique. Polaron 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi I'm just curious what your goal with the state routes in New England is. You seem to be suggesting some within the same state with the same route number be divided up, yet are suggesting routes from different states such as Maine State Route 9 be combined with routes that are from completely different states. Any light you wish to shed on this would be appreciated.Gateman1997 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that. They share a common road, but they are different routes as they are maintained by different states and governments. For instance US 99 and Route 99 (British Columbia) were never the same route even though they shared a common road and a common number. If this were an interstate or US route then you would be correct, however these routes are not the same route, just the same physical road. Gateman1997 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As have I. Let's keep it there for simplicty sake going forward. Gateman1997 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My vandal count

Why did you change it to 2 here? My talk hasn't been vandalized yet (a good thing, considering I only archived it tonight). --Rory096 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes! --Rory096 06:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means I have to warn you, too. --Rory096 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. --Rory096 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Vermount Route 12A

Well, I didn't find a stub that was related specifically to "Vermont State Highways" like some of the other states, so I used a seemingly-generic "US State Highways" stub. Then I noticed that the message on the stub referred to the US Highways WikiProject, so I just assumed it went there as well. If I was incorrect (which it seems that I am), go ahead and remove the reference to the WikiProject. Thanks for noticing my error. Amalas 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe one of us needs to request the stub {{Vermont-State-Highway-stub}} so that it matches the other stubs... *shrug* Amalas 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this against wp policy?

Hi, I made an experimental route highlighting system using both ms virtual earth and google maps. State Highway 10 (Colorado) beta test is there. (the links at the bottom). Is linking to the wikipedia images against policy? I just pass in the raw url to the thumbnail. Does the system sound like a good idea to implement throughout? atanamir 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• So no mapping of the entire map? atanamir 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

SVG image bug

Hi. I just thought I'd point you to this bug report so you know what to do if you see some shields aren't displayed. -- Paddu 06:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing Barnstar

I've removed your addition of the Missing Barnstar to my page. This is my strong advocation, as one of the persons who set up the Missing Barnstar, I must tell that the Missing Barnstar, as the name suggests, is solely confined for those who want a barnstar but don't have even one, to stand themselves out so that somebody could give them an award. I have one barnstar, so it is not legitimate for me to put up, or being put up, with that barnstar.

The Missing Barnstar is not an instrument for one to mark another person as a person who deserves a barnstar, either. If you think that I deserve a barnstar but don't have one, please kindly choose an award directly and give it to me. There's no restriction on who should be giving out a barnstar, so anybody can give out barnstars to any other whom they appreciate.

I know that my tone is a bit harsh as I'm currently in quite a fury (not caused by your act). Anyway, remember the actual purpose of the Missing Barnstar. We don't award others with a Missing Barnstar. If you find someone missing a barnstar, fill it with a barnstar.

Cheers, Deryck C. 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A no-barnstar zone and a missing barnstar occuring on the same page? I would advice you to ask that person to remove it. The missing barnstar is an identifier for the WP:KC to judge who wants a barnstar. --Deryck C. 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Indaian

it seems IDOT calls them state roads in indiana; but right now everything is atstate highway. Is there some bot that can move all the pages to Indiana State Road X or State Road X (Indiana)? Or do i have to do it all manually? atanamir 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• haha. Rschen got on my case right when he saw i moved the list pages. atanamir 03:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:New Hampshire State Highways

Hi SPUI. I know you've been around a while, but... I removed the speedy delete tag from Template:New Hampshire State Highways since being unused is not a CSD as far as I know. I believe you should take it to WP:TFD--sometimes things like this are kept for {{historical}} interest. ~MDD4696 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Interstate shields with corrected border

Why not reupload the new shields with the corrected border under the same name (Interstate N.svg) instead of uploading under a new name (I-N.svg) and changing the images in thousands of pages? Just curious. Thanks! -- Paddu 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Stop tagging the WA highways cat, which had no consensus to delete at CFD. Also, do not move the maine highway pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Utah Highway Markers

Hey, all I have found so far is an impropery tagged GIF (Image:Ut201.GIF); I was wondering if you could make up SVGs that are not copyright-questionable? Thanks Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Try [12]? Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NH Routes on ME list?

Hey, just curious as to why you added a few NH routes on the list of Maine routes. Gateman1997 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly... I figured you were going to move it anyway so I thought I'd beat you to the punch. That and frankly I don't care where they are anymore.

Route 288 (Virginia)

On Virginia State Highway 288, you commented that many roads are built to Interstate standards but don't have Interstate designations. This is true, but very few are freeways (as opposed to toll roads). I can't think of a single other Interstate-standard freeway in Virginia that doesn't have an Interstate designation (other than a few very short ~3mi sections of US-29), and certainly not one that was built to Interstate standards from end-to-end. I think it's a notable issue to mention that it's unusual it hasn't been awarded such a designation, especially as it's a loop around a city connecting two 2DIs. In some states, like Michigan, which have a history of building full-fledged freeways without Interstate designations, this may not be a big deal, but in Virginia it's caused some head-scratching in "roadgeek" circles. Jkatzen 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Has it caused any head scratching outside roadgeek circles? Have there been any plans to make it an Interstate? From what I can tell, it was never supposed to be one. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether there have been plans to make it an Interstate, and it was planned as a state route all the way back to its initial conception decades ago (even when it was intended to be part of a complete circumferential road). Nonetheless, it's the only freeway of any length so far as I can tell in the entire Commonwealth that's built to Interstate standards with no such designation. As such, this bit of trivia alone is worthy of inclusion on the page. Jkatzen 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

HABS/HAER link

Thanks for the info on premanent links to HABS/HAER. As for the bridges section on the "oldest railroad" page, I don't claim to know if it should or shouldn't be there. I had a passing interest on historic bridges in central Maryland that has pretty much run its course -- I have no plans to stay involved in adding/developing railroad articles. — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Florifda state roads

Yes, but even the articles on Wikipedia themselves refer to them by the names I'm giving them. True, it might be the name given to them, but (State Name) State Road (number) would give better search results than State Road (number (state name). Moe ε 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I know how disambiguation works. The examples given are a little off. Like spymaster John Jones, spymaster is what John Jones is doing. State Road 429 (Florida)'s article refers it to Florida State Road 429. State Road 429 might be it's name, but with more than one, and an alternate name given it should be enough disambiguation given. Moe ε 19:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Illinois

No, no specs and it's been at least a week. Plus the IDOT guy replied to one of them, not all three emails I've sent. 3dis are traditionally 24x30... but all those 2di-sized 1xx signs are usually to make the sign fit "nicely" with a directional or arrow sign. The MUTCD prefers 3di signs be 24x30, so I'd go with rectangles for all 3dis.

Plus if you really, really want something to do, you can start moving them. My bot request has gone unheeded. —Rob (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the page moves... it looks much better. I spent the morning taking pictures of a handful of routes, so we'll see if they help the articles at all... —Rob (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Today's your lucky day. They responded. —Rob (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little paranoid like that, but I don't know where else I can dump off the file. So eh, what the heck. You can go ahead and link to it. —Rob (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT

Speaking of I-155, check this shit:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.220595~-89.747808&style=a&lvl=15

Category:Washington highways

c'mon, SPUI, you've obviously been in disputes, and should know that CSD is not the place for dispute resolution . . . so please stop trying to get that category speedied. --He:ah? 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alaska Routes

Hi, It's all good. Should we remove the ones I made then? (I used the naming Alaska X.svg; so right now there's two copies on the commons. Also, which spec did you look at? I posted an ADOT PDF that i found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska (I also started a thread there about the naming convention if you're interested) for shields... here's a direct link: shield; there, i saw they used the EM font; w hich is why i used them in the shields I made. atanamir 03:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

And thank you for opening that little window to your personality to me. Dismas|^(talk) 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

SR/SH/SRoad dab pages

Should this page and this one go here? I wrote up a list of DABs at User:Atanamir/WIP, but i cant figure out where to put them, especially 'state highway' one. atanamir 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

Deletion review is clearly not a forum to overturn decisions on WP:AFD which resulted in keep. I would like to ask that you remove this link to WP:DRV and consider supporting the relocation of this discussion to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. (See the recent history logs of WP:DRV for details.) Silensor 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps Block - o - Bot

Do you have a specific syntax for each of the page moves, if there's consensus I might be able to use a flagged bot to do it (provided you have nice clear community consensus links). I don't know about blocking Curps, Curps's bot is a necessary evil and it's a really good thing to have around when WoW comes around -- Tawker 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

speedying talkpages with project templates on them

G'day SPUI,

I've already answered you on IRC, but for form's sake, I guess I'll add it here, too.

Talkpages with project templates on them are common across Wikipedia. There's hundreds, maybe thousands of the bastards. Nobody has complained except you. You have not attempted to raise any discussion on the issue, instead tagging a random talkpage for deletion and expecting the admin on the spot (in this case, me) to come along and do your bidding. Given the wide proliferation of project templates on talkpages, and your history of unnecessary conflict with other transportation anoraks, it seems to me that any admin doing what you ask in this case would be a bad idea. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand freakofnurture told you to do something silly. He was joking, and freely admits it's not likely to succeed. Guess what? It didn't. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Highway category renames

Several category renames on highways have passed CFD recently. The problem is that our move bot is down, so the actual work of the renames is starting to back up tremendously. Every little bit of help counts, so I figured I would come here and point you in the direction of the completed highway ones in case you had the time to do a bit of the grunt work. Basically the data from the categories themselves needs to be moved into newly built category objects, then, the grunt work, all the entries need to be recategorized from the old cat to the new ones. If you complete any, please go to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working and move the line for that one to the bottom section, and an admin will do the actual delete on the old category when they get a chance. Any assistance on these that you can provide would be wonderful.

Category:U.S. Highway 66 to Category:U.S. Route 66

Category:Communities on U.S. Highway 66 to Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66

Category:Rhode Island State Highways to Category:Numbered routes in Rhode Island

TexasAndroid 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've begun some initial merge work on the two highway shields article; it's at List of highway shields in the United States/merge. Take a look if you want. atanamir 19:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Florida Toll Shields

It had been my impression, SPUI, that the Florida outline in Toll shields is red. My old shields depicted that, though I may not have had the colors exactly right. --WhosAsking 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• It has come to my attention that the TOLL shields are used in different ways. Someone hinted to me that all MDX shields use black outlines, toll or not, and that freeways and toll routes beyond the last toll plaza take the TOLL off the shield. Just FTR, you may want to verify the font used in the toll shields. We're both using the right ones, I'm sure, on the normal shields, but I'm pretty confident I'm using the right ones on the TOLL shields. TTBOMK, they use the D-series font (instead of C-series) for TOLL shield numbers. Check some FL shield photographs for verification. I used to spend time in Orlando, so I'm more familiar with those shields (which use the red state outline). Looks like we'll need to make a third template: for the curved shield without the TOLL on top for any MDX-maintained free road. --WhosAsking 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, you have it right. I verified this when I checked an image over at SouthEastRoads. Note that we can still use TOLL shields on any route that is TOLL for some way, and 924 still needs the standard shield since the free portion is FDOT-maintained (it's the tollway that's MDX-maintained). I also stand corrected about the D-series font. Apparently, the convention's changing to use the black outlines with C-series font (the old style with the red outline used the D-series). Since 878 is the only MDX freeway, it's the only one that needs a "toll-free" shield displayed. The rest just use "free" shields when you get beyond the toll plazas, to indicate the route ahead is untolled (I edited the MDX article to explain this).

• AFAIK, all route insignia on the big green signs in that part of the state use an abbreviated state-standard shield (the outline, the number, and a white surround--no more). I'm personally against it, as toll routes also usually post TOLL ROUTE in the route description, and the roads in the Orlando area, IIRC, use the TOLL shields on the green signs. --WhosAsking 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

K-Meleon userbox

Hey, I was reading your curpsbot essay, and you said you use K-Meleon. A while ago I made a userbox for K-Meleon users to sport over at {{User browser:K-Meleon}}, you think you'd want it on your babelbox? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Do not move any more state highway pages in Washington please. Otherwise you will be referred to an admin and blocked. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But then...=

"california state route 56 ramp closures In http://1956-56-1955-55-oldsmoble-convertible.drxxi.com 1956 56 1955 55 oldsmoble convertible. ..." "... and 56 fighter group. http://california-state-route-56-ramp-closures.drxxi.com california state route 56 ramp closures and department 56 harry potter. ..." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

You're the hot topic at WP:AN/I again. We're starting a pool on how long before Curps' bot blocks you. :-D I'm not gonna get involved in the page move conflict or whatever's going on, but thought it was only fair to let you know you're being discussed. JDoorjam Talk 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola samba Windows.png

I notice you marked this for speedy deletion and said that it wasn't under a free license. How is it that David Vignoni can release a set of icons including File:Nuvola devices samba unmount.png, if a piece of said icon is unfree? Would appreciate an explanation on my talk page. Seahen 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CA

Hi,

I think we were all wrong with California:

Thank you for contacting Tcpubinfolink.

Tthe Street and Highway Codes for California, refer to them as Routes.

                     atanamir@sbcgloba                                                                    
                              l.net ()        To:       tcpubinf@dot.ca.gov                               
                                              cc:                                                         
                      04/14/2006 04:19        Subject:  traffic congestion/construction problem           
                                    PM                                                                    
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by

(atanamir@sbcglobal.net) on Friday, April 14, 2006 at 16:19:34

---

question: Hi,

I was wondering as to the terminoplogy for the state highway system in California. Are they referred to as simply "state routes", or "Califonria state routes"?

Thanks, Stephen

---

atanamir 18:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I have every sympathy with your point about stubs. However, I have put in explicit stubs in some articles. - Runcorn 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oook

Sorry. I thought that line was an error. (NNDB AfD page) Quatloo 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*hibada hibada hibada* I'd been hanging out for a chance to slap a {{fact}} on something you said, dammit.
brenneman^{L} 08:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please don't request for him to be unblocked through a template meant for only the user in question to unblock. If you want him to be unblocked, please state so explicitly and clarify where the request is coming from. As things stood, you could have triggered a nasty wheel war. This is an official warning; persist and you will be blocked. Johnleemk | Talk 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonus specs - Wisconsin

I had enough highways running into Wisconsin that I finally needed shields, and sure enough, they came through too. There's no WP to speak of for them, but they'll appreciate it, as will I. Plus the sign just looks... unique.

Thanks for your hard work! Same deal with me changing the template URL whenever I find a neutral, not-my-personal-webserver webserver to put it on. It's worth noting that WI doesn't use rectangular shields at all. —Rob (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's right on. Good work! If you need a limiting reference, http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/index.html is fantastic, but I think you already knew that since you started at 10. —Rob (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Washington highways

You're trying to depopulate this category so you can nominate it for deletion again and you know it. JohnnyBGood expressed his opinion that the category was appropriate for non-official highways; aside from the fact that that's the view of a single person, it doesn't necessarily follow that the category is not appropriate for anything else.

I don't even like this category. I voted for deletion! But you've gotten on my last nerve with your repeated attempts to steamroll anyone and everyone who gets in your way. You don't own this project. Grow up. --phh (^t/_c) 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

May be useful for finding sign standards

Have you seen this? [13] ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Route 114 & Route 78

You're doing my trick and going to fast. Both of these say "The following highways are numbered 183". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

HAHA What the fuck?

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=39.976956~-82.988116&style=r&lvl=15

I guess they couldn't afford to acquire the right of way directly next to the WB lanes.......

New Hampshire Route 101E

There's only one or two places where there are 101E signs. There used to be a sign on US 1 south in Hampton for it, with 101E on a plain white rectangle (and not a current state highway shield), but I don't think that's there anymore. It might also be signed on NH 1A. But there are no signs on Winnacunnet Road on any stretch signifying it as 101E. That's what I meant by it being unsigned, as (assuming the signs are still there) the only time you know you're on 101E is either turning from US 1 south or from 1A. For what it's worth. Spell4yr 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Oven Fresh

It appears that the username User:Oven Fresh I found is located in Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of SPUI. I visited his page and saw no sockpuppet tag on it. I then promptly checked his page history for the diff version, showing that he placed this category [14]. If you didn't intend to create this account for the use of sock puppetry, then I'm going to remove the category from the page. That could be a possible hoax, as well as your userpage. -- ADNghiem501 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I guess you might not be related to the user. I've removed him from the sock category list. -- ADNghiem501 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

Hello. I noticed that you have been doing some work on the Central Expressway (Dallas) article.

I see that you work heavily with road-related articles, so I'm not entirely sure what happened.

• City articles are formatted as [[City, State|City]]. Not [[City (State abbreviation)|City]]
• U.S. Route links (against convention and officially called "Route"s, not "Highway"s) are formatted as [[U.S. Route xx]] or [[U.S. Route xx|US xx]]
• Interstate links are formatted as [[Interstate xx]] or [[Interstate xx|I-xx]]. Though it is common for TxDOT to use '''IH xx''' internally, it is again against convention at the wikipedia and not a recognized abbreviation by USDOT. Furthermore, there are not separate interstate highway articles for each state.

Thanks.. drumguy8800 - speak 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Interstate 40 in Texas article exists because you created it. Also, there are bots that specifically run through pages creating and editing pipe links to bypass redirects (like the ones you put in for efficiency). It does not make the process easier, it just means the editor is lazy. Also, you completely removed already created wikilinks and replaced them with the inefficient linking. The coding to pages should be uniform so that other users can know how to do it correctly.

Interstate 40 in Texas is currently only a see also link in the Interstate 40 article. If there were subsections for each state it went to and you used the {{main|article}} tag, I might support your efforts. Unfortunately, I've noticed that you have edit wars with users.. should I ABF, possibly? It's hard to take you seriously as an editor when your user page looks the way it does and your discussion page is in major need of pruning. And no hard feelings, I'm not going to mess with any of your articles, but for the sake of logic and continuity, I will continue to use U.S. Route as that's how the rest of the nation does it. Another example of this is that English units are de facto in the United States but policy is to have metric precedence with conversions... drumguy8800 - speak 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were wrong; I said I don't approve of the way you're working articles. drumguy8800 - speak 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I-75

Warning from an admin... blah blah blah... no violation of three reverts per day but... blah blah blah... don't be a dick... blah blah blah... quasi-abusive edit summaries... blah blah blah...

Would it kill you to have a bit more patience with people that you think are idiots? Everyone gives you so much fucking latitude it is mad, but I'm afraid that one day you actually will exhaust everyone's patience.

Sometimes it is not enough to be correct you have to be concilliatory as well. Not that I know anything about that personally, but I'm told on good authority that's the case.

brenneman^{L} 07:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be a duck

What's it's purpose? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it's silly being a duck? Have you tried it? Don't attack those of us who like to try the duck lifestyle once in a while. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa. --Interiot 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And i don't have much of an appetite. CambridgeBayWeather

Thank you

Sometimes (but not always, or even frequently) I suspect you have more commonsense than all of us put together. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try

But until you can show a solid 2/3 consensus bugger off. JohnnyBGood t c 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Suffixed Oklahoma shield

Here's a suffixed shield photo like you were wanting. This was just posted on Friday according to the back of the sign. Leave me a note on my talk page when you've got the new shields done (if that was your intentions)...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great except at 25px (I've done some tests in my sandbox). The Red River really bunches up at the smaller size, and would probably do the same thing on a real sign at a distance, which is probably why ODOT decided to simplify the border a bit when they started actually cranking out the signs. Then again, ODOT isn't real big on following standards - they've posted Interstate shields in Helvetica font before....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're still wanting to do these, I think what you might want to do is follow specs as close as possible, except on the southern border, and simplify that based on photos (Image:Ok66.jpg and Image:Ok9shield.jpg may help for two-digit signs). I only ask because I'm starting to need more new shields on articles, but I'm hesitant to create more of my wacko shields that always seem to end up off-center...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 08:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Move warring

Stop the move warring. Sasquatch t|c 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I will once the pages stay at their correct names. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked -- Tawker 23:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As a term of both your and JohnnyBGood's unblocks I am requesting that you do not revert each others edits - if you do so, blocks will go in effect again -- Tawker 00:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As an outside party to all of this highway move warring (I've done occasional edits to highway-related articles, but haven't played any role in the battles over what to name them), I'm finding it pretty silly that people would keep warring back and forth over whether a set of highways should be known as "[State Name] State Route X" or "State Route X ([State Name])" or "[State Name] State Road X" or "[State Name] State Highway X" or "Highway X ([State Name])" or whatever. I think consistency across all such articles would be a good thing, and consistency with what the appropriate state highway department actually calls it would also be a good thing, and consistency with what typical motorists know it as would also be good... though these things might clash with one another sometimes. But whatever they should be called, this ought to be hashed out by a process of consensus instead of by unilateral moves and reversions, repeated over and over, as you're doing. *Dan T.* 02:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As per the anti move war actions, I have blocked you for 24 hours for move reverting JohnnyBGood, despite being asked not to do so. I really don't care how the final naming syntax goes, I am just a little annoyed at the disruptive actions the move warring has brought up and would much prefer a non conflicting solution. If you are willing, I am offering to take a look at both arguments and from a neuteral perspective and (if you both agree to take a step from normal procedures) come down with a binding decision. In either case, I am more than happy to unblock, and I'm sure you're more than willing to discuss this. -- Tawker 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The only disruption was the double redirects caused by Johnny's moves. I always take the time to fix double redirects. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California_State_Highways, I'm hoping we can come to some sort of consensus as its obvious that you're both head screwed on good stuff editors and I'm sure a compromise can be reached easily -- Tawker 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as you have some problems with making it binding, would you be able to post your arugument on the page anyways, perhaps of its possible for everone to see where everone is coming from it might help reach a compromise. Cheers -- Tawker 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because from the comments on the non binding arbitration page it looks like a reasonable compromise cannot be reached (this dispute has passed through mediation once without a resolution being reached) I'm afraid the only major course of action is to request that ArbCom, the people who do have the power to issue a binding resolution, take a look at this case. If you feel that this case cannot go any further through non binding means, I encourage you to take it there. Although you "know you are right" it still doesn't mean that other viewpoints cannot be considered and sadly insistance that one is right can cause some problems. I'm not saying you're right or wrong but its obvious there is a dispute here that needs to be solved and it looks like the only way to solve it is to make it binding -- Tawker 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be the only option- we've got a failed RFC too. As for your note on my talk page SPUI, noone was blocking you then. I saw no reason why I should have to abide by the ANI rule if you were breaking it and not getting punished for it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the RFC succeeded. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 93

Why do you keep removing the I-93/95 junction from the infobox. Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways 2di interchanges (especially the X0 and X5) interchanges are considered MAJOR and are supposed to be in the infobox. JohnnyBGood t c 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes however one is in Canton 15 miles south of Boston city center and the other is in Woburn 15 miles north of Boston city center. They are over 30 miles apart. This is another great argument as to why saying "near Boston" is very inaccurate and does nothing to give a general idea of the route. JohnnyBGood t c 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the guidelines of the wikiproject support my position in this case. JohnnyBGood t c 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Route 66

I have a 1981 road atlas which shows US 66 from east of Joplin, MO to Kingman, AZ. The eastern terminus was at I-44 east of Duenweg and headed straight west down modern MO 66 to the Kansas state line. At Kansas, it is Kansas 66 to Riverton, and Alternate US 69 to Oklahoma. Alt 69 to US 69 northeast of Miami, through Afton and Vinita. West of Vinta, it is US 60 to the beginning of OK 66 near White Oak. OK 66 to Tulsa, follows I-44 through Tulsa, OK 66 to I-35 at Edmond. Through Oklahoma City, its I-35 and I-44 to where OK 66 takes off through Warr Acres. Continues on OK 66 to west of El Reno (OK 66s west end). I-40 all the way to Texas. I-40 all the way across Texas except 11 miles west of Conway where it turns off to US 60 and follows Amarillo Boulevard through Amarillo. I-40 all the way across New Mexico, except through Albuquerque (Central Avenue). In Arizona, I-40 all the way to Seligman, then AZ 66 to Kingman.

There's a handful of breaks in I-40 at this point, but it's probably a safe bet at the end it was on I-40.

Until 1979, it still started in Chicago, though I don't know specifically where, but I do know I've seen a map still showing it ending at Lake Shore Drive and Jackson/Adams. It was down I-55 through the rest of Illinois. In Missouri, it still went down Gravois Road and Watson Road in the St. Louis area and was on I-44 to Halltown. At Halltown, it went west down MO 96 to Carthage, and modern Business 71 to Joplin. It turned west on MO 66 at Rangeline and 7th.

A 1972 AAA map shows US 66 still taking the National Trails Road through Amboy, but that's all I can make out about California at that time. Rt66lt 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for three hours for incivility. We cannot tolerate these types of edits: [15]--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the edits you should not tolerate are the other side preaching their incorrect disambiguation. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you to allow you to reply to your RFAr.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Request

Due to the stalemare in this case, I have filed for Arbitration here - this is the required notice to make a statement in the dispute -- Tawker 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any RFAr there. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, there it is. I can't really comment, as I'm blocked, but whatever. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Christ

If you want to drive through fucking RURAL America, drive US 59 end to end. Jesus. I think the biggest city you'll hit along the way is Houston. Otherwise, talk about a rural fucking drive. Jesus. --Analogdemon (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy Shit

[16] There used to be a bridge over the river on Blackstone Avenue in Pawtucket. You can see the support still in the water. It existed in 1894 [17] but was gone by 1944 [18].

Arlington County, Virginia

Hey SPUI, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 04:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Over a year ago is the recent past, eh? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

NYSDOT, statutory usage

It seems that DOT doesn't care too much about this distinction: here are several of its own press releases with the "New York State Route X" usage: [19], [20], [21].

Yes, I'm sure if you want you can find a howling little error like this one [22] to suggest they're unreliable sources on the matter ... and I don't deny that. You can easily find some press releases which use "State Route X". But that proves my point: if NYSDOT cares so little about some sort of proper terminology that its public statements are (ahem) all over the map, why should we?

Now as for the state Highway Law, which you seem to be relying on, I find no distinction drawn between "state highway" and "state route" in the "Classification of highways" section (Art. 1, §3) (I would link to these but unfortunately I can't figure out how to do it within the Assembly's framing system). Indeed, the most relevant section to your position (Art. 12, §341), is headed "State Routes," but uses the term "state highways" throughout. So, if we follow your principle, we're going to have to rename every article "New York State Highway X." I believe if that was your intent you would have done it by now. (I also seem to recall that recently, when someone cited Washington law to you as trumping whatever WashDOT actually did since the two seemed to differ, you said that it was what WashDOT did that mattered.

I would also point out that the aforementioned section of the NYS Highway Law, while it makes reference to highway numbers, makes abolutely no reference to any numbers actually in use either as reference or touring routes. So, IMO, it cannot be considered a reliable guide for purposes of Wikipedia naming conventions.

I also find more Google hits on "New York State Route ..." than on "New York State Highway ..." [23].

So, given all this, I believe we cannot find any reliable and consistent official use from either statute or public usage by the appropriate state agency and therefore must develop a consensus here that works for us. And that consensus has been, for a variety of reasons, to use "New York State Route X." I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but I would rather create articles than engage in edit wars with anyone over this.

And I really don't want to be one of those many people who constantly get into it with you. Everybody says, and they're all right, that you've done a lot for Wikipedia. I have benefited from your work, and some of your edits have improved articles I've worked on. So please, when you respond to this, try to keep it this way. Daniel Case 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts State Highway distances

Where are you getting the distances for Mass. State Highways (such as Route 111 (Massachusetts))? Also, how do I join the US Roads Project? Tckma 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's complex, but your directions are clear. I'll try it when I next have time to work on some articles. Thanks for the info! Tckma 11:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

One more speed limit sign request

Could you make a MUTCD-compliant night speed limit sign and slap it up at Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Night_speed_limits? Thanks! 65 mph may make the most sense there.

Nova SS 02:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF

We actually agree on something. I think I may have shit my pants just now! JohnnyBGood t c 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dothan map

Oooh, thanks much for that...and as it turns out that State Route 210 is one of the relatively few Alabama highways I'm fairly familiar with, I went ahead and created the article too. —Pedriana 04:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Broad interstate categories

Is the Category:Interstate 55 thing for all Interstates, or just 0/5 ones? I like the idea.

Also I'd be giving you specs for the U.S. Bike Route signs (still can't believe the routes actually exist) but the MUTCD was recently updated to have the bike in the bigger white space, and the number in the lower one (to emphasize on on-road routes that it's a BIKE route). Don't know if I agree with that, but the updated specs aren't anywhere out there yet. —Rob (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually... there's a pair of signs on Moeur's presentation. Page 29 has a side-by-side comparison. —Rob (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

April 9 comment

Don't know if I ever responded to your comment of Apr 9 to me. But I now support your disambig method for the highway articles where state official names leds support to that position, such as Maine. I wanted to apologize for any unpleasantness between us. Gateman1997 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image to be replaced == LibertyParkTunnel.png

The image to which you objected is heavily hand edited, substantially changing its information, detail and coloration. However, in a day or two I will replace it with an equivalent built on U.S. Census maps.

Craig Bolon 13:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: plans for road tunnel

There are several mentions of potential road tunnels under the harbor, some inspired by recent findings that ventilation will be practical over the large center span of the proposed rail tunnel. The Port Authority is said to have looked at the issue, but there does not yet seem to be any sign of that in the documents it makes available on the Web.

Mention of road tunnel

Mentions of a "cross harbor" or "express" tunnel can be found on several newsgroups and other pages. There was a somewhat heated interchange at one point during discussion of a tunnel under West St.

Craig Bolon 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There are items from newspapers.

Craig Bolon 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Good find, thanks for the nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Please do not move pages on road-names without consensus, thanks. --Sunfazer | Talk 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I only moved it back because it seemed the sensible thing to do. I'll leave a message on the US Roads WikiProject. --Sunfazer | Talk 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How do we avoid edit warring?? --Sunfazer | Talk 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to help out on the State Highways Wikiproject if anyone wants. --Sunfazer | Talk 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Moo!

You get a cowstar for being SUPERGREAT!

--217.134.237.125 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Morris

Honestly? Perhaps he is a notable person, but the article made it sound like he was most notable for being an outstanding teacher. As someone unfamiliar with him, I didn't get the impression he was noteworthy outside his community (which may not be the case). I also don't know what his community was, since the article doesn't mention what country he called home (there's a well known Cambridge in both the US and the UK). This is just my opinion. I won't re tag it. Czolgolz 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't Frown

Please don't frown [24]

behappy--E-Bod 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

SMILE!

For nominating Template:Smile for deletion, and creating the ridiculously parodic Template:Frown,

File:HalfLife2 GMan Prologue.jpg

Ral315 (talk) has frowned at you! Frowns promote soft cock and hopefully this one has made you detumescant. Spread the droops by frowning at someone else, whether it be someone you have had an unsatisfying cyber with in the past or a rouge admin. Frown to others by adding {{subst:frown}} to their talk pages. Get bent.

Ral315 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, as "bad things" go that was still way too happy. Better Worse now, but it's a shame there isn't some way to make it stink as well.
brenneman^{L} 12:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Although LeT's UsE pRoPeR cApItAlIzAtIoN on WT:CJ is humourous, it breaches WP:POINT. Computerjoe's talk 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I and others find your user page deeply offensive and would appreciate i if you could tone it down a bit. Thanks Cicero Dog 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your user page deeply amusing. I would appreciate if you didn't tone it down in any way. --elias.hc 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that emotion! Don't let the WikiPinheads grind ya down! ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Computerjoe's talk 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indiana shield standards...

Seeing as the GIFs are gone, I emailed InDOT, and they were quick, but they gave me this:

We use the Standard Highway Signs booklet that is put out by the FHWA. The web address for such is here

This site provides the normal info for a sign. It also gives guidance for the preparation of any word message signs that each state may decide upon using. The general sign design is followed when we make up a special word message sign.

I can't imagine that's enough information to go on creating signs... is it? —Rob (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lakes-to-Sea Highway

When you stub sort, please leave the stub template after the categories, so the stub category is last. Thanks. --SPUI (T - C) 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia:Stub: "Because the stub identification is rendered on an article page prior to hardcoded items like categories and inter-Wiki language links, the template is usually placed at the end of the article proper, after the External links section if it exists, but before categories or inter-Wiki links." It makes a lot more sense to me to place the stub template before the categories, because it is a visible part of the article; plus, I rarely have ever seen a stub notice done your way. ~ Booyabazooka 23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 666

Hi SPUI. Wondering why you moved Pennsylvania State Route 666 to Pennsylvania Route 666. I looked when I was renaming Pennsylvania state route 666 and most of the other Pennsylvania state highway articles use the "State Route" convention. I'm also wondering why you changed the links to U.S. Route 62 and U.S. Route 6 to point to redirects to those articles. Seems odd to introduce an intentional redirect. Powers 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for the information. I'm beginning to see why there are so many contentious edits in the highways project. =) Powers 12:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Very devilish, isn't this? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Deck Arch Bridges

Is this US terminology? I can't say I've ever heard the term "deck arch bridge" in my working career here in the UK. A google UK search reveals 5 hits, 3 of which are for a bridge in Nevada. Leithp 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We normally just refer to them as arch bridges or we classify them by material and construction. It piqued my interest when you re-categorised Craigellachie Bridge, an article I wrote, as an deck arch bridge. I'd just refer to Craigellachie, for example, as a cast-iron arch bridge. Leithp 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it does indirectly, a masonry arch bridge is always going to be of the "deck arch" type due to the properties of masonry. A tied arch bridge is likewise always going to be of the "through deck" type. The form of the bridge dictates the location of the deck. Leithp 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Compression arch suspended-deck bridge isn't a term I've come across either. All the google hits seem to be for Wikipedia or mirrors, which isn't a good sign either. The method of horizontal restraint, the deck or the piers, is different in the two cases but the bridges cited seem to mostly be tied-arches. It was a good idea to transfer the discussion to Wikiproject: Bridges as well, another educated opinion never does any harm. Leithp 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Heya, can you pop up on irc for a bit? Kim Bruning 23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Thanks Very Much for trolling Deletion Review with the phil sandifer article. (not) :-( Kim Bruning 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Can you do those Oklahoma shields now? ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Iron Bridge

Why are you trying to move this article away from its correct name? Trying to do something like this is something that should be discussed first. Noisy | Talk 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, discuss this first. This is not a standard case, because you would never use the term without the 'The' in front of it. I strongly support your view on the State Routes of Washington, but this is a totally different case. Noisy | Talk 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you can have 'White House staff'.  :-) Noisy | Talk 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move the highways

I think it would be sensible – and appreciated – if you didn't rename any of the state route articles while the matter is being considered for Arbitration.

While there's not a wide consensus on the appropriate article naming scheme (for what it's worth, I'm actually inclined to agree with you on the Washington routes) I believe there is wide agreement that continued move warring is disruptive.

Could you hold off on the moves until the matter is settled conclusively? There are a lot of admins who are getting itchy blocking fingers over the sterile move warring...and I'm afraid I'm turning into one of them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. --Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my recent comments at Talk:List of Washington State Routes. -- Northenglish 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. -- Northenglish 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[25]

80 mph speed limit sign

In celebration of Texas's recently approved 80 mph speed limit, can you replace the 75 mph speed limit sign on Speed limits in the United States with an 80 mph sign? Nova SS 02:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudowallerian degeneration

Hi, did you have a specific reason to recreate Pseudowallerian degeneration? That article was deleted before, and I don't think a redirect is a good idea, since the technical term "pseudowallerian degeneration" does not exist in the scientific literature. Wikipedia shouldn't create terminology; pretty much all Google hits for that term go ultimately back to us. AxelBoldt 15:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Where in WP:RFD would I find an answer to the question I asked you? AxelBoldt 15:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked for your specific reason to recreate this page, not for a pointer to some policy. Thanks, AxelBoldt 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 103

I created a poor stub of Pennsylvania Route 103 to stop the revert war you and another user was having in that TWA article. I hope you don't mind and expand this. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I love you man

yea yea ya I love you! 72.145.155.253 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

&nbsp;

Hi, SPUI. May I ask you not to create redirect which contain HTML-entities per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML codes, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/February 2006#February_9 and bugzilla:5731? Cheers, —Ruud 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

#5463...

Thanks, and "bloody fuck annoying" would seem to be a fairly apt characterisation. Who was it that said, if you think some of the articles are bad, you should see the code... Alai 00:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

More OK shield images

• Image:US266eend.jpg (OK-2)
• Image:I-240okshield.jpg (OK-3)

Let me know if these help...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Ok15.jpg
• Image:Ok24ok39.jpg
• Image:Ok74.jpg

That 24/39 one should get you what you need. —Scott5114↗ 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of List_of_highways_bypassed_by_Interstate_Highways

Please don't revert this. While my characterization of two letter abbreviations as ugly is subjective, these are also all redirects, and thus are to be fixed under standard Wikipedia conventinos. Catbar (Brian Rock) 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I went to rebut you, and found that you're apparently correct, at least by today's standards. Wikipedia:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. I think it used to be different, but now, you're right. Sorry. Catbar (Brian Rock) 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Boston University Bridge

Hello - I just wanted to let you know that I restored the trivia section in the Boston University Bridge article. I know it seems implausable, however it is truthful to the best of my knowledge. I have never been to the bridge myself, but as a native of Massachusetts I have heard of this before I edited the article. I also provided a citation in the article itself, and included some additional references, including a link that has a good picture of the bridge, on the article's talk page.

The automobile portion of the bridge is built over a railway bridge, and both are built over the Charles River; thus the hypothetical scenario of an airplane flying over a car driving over a train travelling over a boat.

I agree that perhaps the wording could be a bit more verbose to explain this. Feel free to edit it if you'd like. I may do so myself sometime in the future. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - I misread your edit summary to mean "it's not possible that a plane could fly over a car (etc)". Now that I understand your reason for its removal, I see that you're correct in that it's not the only bridge that can make that claim. Sorry for the trouble --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RFA Deliberations

Hi,

Is there a page where i can read the ArbCom's deliberations over the naming dispute? Or are those secret? atanamir 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route naming convention

I can't see why you took it on yourself, without any discussion with other contributors/editors, at least that I can detect, to change the format of the titles from "Tennessee State Route XX", which is both intuitive and the accepted Wikistyle, I believe, to ""State Route XX (Tennessee)". I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and will not just move everything back unless I don't hear from you for a few days, but that is my intent as it stands now. Rlquall 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the "pipe trick"; you can check my edit history for proof. I still see the policy on this as "proposed", there isn't any consensus that I see, and until then you're potentially changing pieces of lots of (mostly) other people's work (although that is hardly without precedent or unconscionable, and I'm not trying to imply that it is). Unlike perhaps other states, the expression "Tennessee State Route X" is seemingly a fairly commom one here, and I think it makes the best possible convention. Rlquall 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

redirect

My apologies, I wasn't aware of that particular policy – thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Pedriana 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

radio station

Hi SPUI, I don't know if it's policy or whatever, but the article was just a header "External links" and the infobox. I agree you can argue that the content was in the infobox, and I probably should have just added the line you just added ("KBTR-CA is a television station in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States."). That gives it some context (and content). Thanks for fixing it. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry about this; I was deleting a lot of speedies at the time. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I will be away from Wikipedia for a few months. My access to the site has been limited and I can only get on during a few hours a week. However, during summer my schedule changes, and thus I am unable to get back on Wikipedia.

You may contact me however, at Wikisource or by email (keep me updated on the arbcom case, I will be able to respond)...

I'm not really sure when I'll be returning. Possibly in August or September... although I signed up to take AP Chemistry, AP Language, AP U.S. History, Pre-Calculus, Spanish 4, Physics, and Eschatology and Hermaneutics. Don't know how the homework load will be. But rest assured... I'll be back.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

For participating in my insane project and surviving, here is a present! Enjoy! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

aWP-deadThis user survived AntiWikipedia but subsequently killed himself.

Actually I killed myself. So you lose. Hah. --SPUI (T - C) 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'll modify the userbox. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

600-series original research

As part of your edit in the new intro, you wrote "The selection of this range was coordinated within the state, gradually replacing older systems of mainly one- and two-digit routes." Where are you getting this?  ;)! lensovet 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway (Road?)

That stock certificate is damning evidence that I'm wrong, and it should be Railway instead of Railroad. I thought Railway was a british term and Railroad was always used in the USA. In Rowlee Steiner's manuscript he calls it a Railroad, but he could be wrong too.george 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration pages

Do not edit the proposed decision page again. Other than the obvious typo fixes, only arbitrators and clerks may edit that page. I've seen your WP:POINTs, I don't find them particularly cute, and they certainly don't help your case. You will be blocked next time. Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Capital Beltway

First, thanks for creating a new exit list, it's needed to be done and it looks great. Second, signage on the beltway is odd, but if you'd like, I can probably head over there next week and get some pictures around the springfield interchange. Or if you want any pictures in general, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

MD 187 is signed North-South throughout its route. I talked with my dad and some people who have lived here for a long time, and this is what I've found out. The Beltway was signed North-South from I-270 to just south of Rte 620 in Virginia. At that turn, it was signed East-West from the southwest curve to near Andrews AFB. From Andrews AFB to the Montgomery-Prince Georges County line, it was signed North-South, and from the county line to where the I-270 spur joins was signed East-West. Not too different from now. I'm going to go check out the new Wilson Bridge later this week, so I'll check out the latest improvements to the springfield interchange, too. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. Well, you can see by the pictures you posted that 495 is east-west east of 270, and north-south south of 270. So...good question. I would assume that it's south-east. I'll go check it out next week and snap a few pictures. Sorry for the confusion, I just got my wisdom teeth out today and I'm a little out of it. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

CR seal fonts

Hi! I made this image Image:NJCountyRoad.svg and was looking for some input. Mostly, I'd love to know what font NJDOT uses for their signs. In addition I see that the colors are totally off and was wondering if you had any insight into what the colors are actually supposed to be. Thanks for your help! lensovet 04:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Farm to Market Road 603 Infobox Cleanup?

Help me out here; what about this needs cleanup? I saw you had changed the I-20 shield, and the size of the routebox shields, which is fine with me. What else needs doing? Has there been a standard for these promulgated? I had just copied the sizes and such from another Texas FM--If it's useful to put something useful in the comments on the infobox page or on the project page, to prevent other style errors, I'd be happy to. DavidBavousett 16:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Esplanade Mall

I have listed this for undeletion, as it was a completely different article when you deleted it. Please be more careful when deleting articles as re-creations of deleted content. --SPUI (T - C) 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented on the listing here. TigerShark 19:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yari road

I don't mean to split hairs, but what was wrong with my prod reason on the Yari road article? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean, thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[26] made on June 12 2006 (UTC) to Waterways forming and crossings of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Voice-of-All 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock|This was removal of an unsourced assertion that the Causeway is SR 913. According to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]], "Wikipedia is not for Uncited Material".

To clarify, see below. --SPUI (T - C) 08:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If revert warring is inevitable, then go to WP:RFPP and get the page tagged (accuracy) and locked. Then build a decent consensus on the talk page. Just reverting for days will not solve anything.Voice-of-All 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

State Roads in Florida is always being edited and added to - protecting it would be stupid. --SPUI (T - C) 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm right in the opinion of policy. --SPUI (T - C) 11:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in the opinion of the 3RR policy. The intent is to stop the disruption of edit warring, there a few exemptions and removal of uncited material is not one of them. --pgk^(talk) 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your AWB seems to be misconfigured

You removed the sortkeys from the categories in this article. --SPUI (T - C) 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for the catch. I'm not sure what happened, and I'll comb through a few of my other AWB contributions to see if the same thing's happened elsewhere. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:74.137.216.240, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Steve-o 11:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi I edited my talk page with a message for what seems to be an expert wikipedia police force. Please stop this revert/warn drama. It makes everyone sad.  :/

Redirects

Could you stop making redirects to non-existant pages please. You made one redirect to Townville, South Carolina and another to Fair Play, South Carolina. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I-85 SB at I-285 topside

Yeah, you're exactly right about exit 95 on Interstate 85 in Georgia. Southbound into the ring road played havoc with my brain. The sign is right: the B exit is encountered first for westbound, and the A is eastbound. Thank you for finding the picture. (Though I'm sure I would've gone shopping at Fry's up I-85 this weekend...just to look at the sign, of course. :) ) Again, nice catch. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, I understand something the Georgia government did. Book me a room with the rubber walls. :) When they went to mile-log exits, they went with the escalating pattern, so 95B is "above" 95A, to keep the sequence. Under sequential numbering, since only the southbound exit was split, they gave 35A to the first exit encountered southbound...which was 285 west. So, when they renumbered, 35A became 95B, according to the site you mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Whew. I reread the site, and I got that entirely wrong. I think the DOT just has the current designation backward. I don't have a reference for the original signage handy, though. But the signs you found a picture of look current. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything I can do?

Hey, I noticed the reaming you took on multiple fronts today and wanted to offer my support (I've been watching with interest ever since I was named as a potential party). They seem to be gangin up on you pretty hard, and while you can be a pain in the ass on occasion, you're both a productive editor and not the only party who may have fouled in the page name dispute. Freak, Johnny, PHenry, Nohat, and Rschen were also equally as culpable and yet they're all skating through scott free on this which isn't kosher. It may bring me back into it, which I'm loathe to have happen at this point, but I can't abide something as one sided as that Arbcom appears to be. Gateman1997 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, we'll see what happens. --SPUI (T - C) 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I left a few notes on the workshop page all the same. Hopefully some good will come of it, God knows my writing tonight has degenerated back to a 4th grade level. But it's better then nothing under the circumstances. Gateman1997 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess it wasn't any help. They picked me apart. Sorry man I tried but they'll have none of it. I'm afraid to say anything more lest I be dragged in too. Gateman1997 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevada shields

As you have created some very accurate shields for other states, may I request that you create shields for the state routes in Nevada? I'm currently working on the articles themselves, but I'm not quite the graphic artist. Thanks. --Geopgeop 15:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing else out there we can use apart from modifying the existing PNGs: Image:NV-28.png (2-digit) and Image:NV-604.png (3-digit). Whatever signs I could find online, they are on copyrighted pages such as [27]. However, the 1979 edition of Standard Highway Signs includes many state highway signs (even Nevada), but it is not available electronically, I'm afraid. I have contacted NevadaDOT for the actual design, and I'm awaiting a response. --Geopgeop 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just received a response from NDOT. Unfortunately, I wasn't too clear, and they asked me to say again what I needed. I'll update you on the progress. --Geopgeop 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just received the PDF of the shield design from NevadaDOT. However, they want me to call them about the licensing issues over the phone. (The shields we may draw from this are after all under derivative use.) As I will be busy today (I'm graduating from my trade school today with an MCDST certification) I will call sometime tomorrow instead. (Forgot to sign) --Geopgeop 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just called, in effect NevadaDOT said we could do anything we want with the shield design (except make actual shields for use on the freeway, but that's already law) so we're go. I'll send an email to you with the PDF attached. --Geopgeop 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that the SVGs that I made were okay, until ChrisRuvolo brought it up on my talk page. Can you review the SVGs that I've done at Commons:Category:Nevada State Route shields? Try modifying from the Nevada blank.svg and see that it looks like Image:Nevada_State_Highway_Signposts_Carson_Range.jpg, please? --Geopgeop 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a new version of Commons:Image:Nevada blank.svg. Compare the two versions and the Carson Range JPEG link above and see if that was an improvement. Either way I'm done and I'm leaving it up to you again. (Will I ever make up my mind?) --Geopgeop 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and of course compare it with Image:NV-blank.gif. --Geopgeop 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm obsessed. Check my talk page out because I uploaded Nevada 207.svg, and you can compare with Nevada 206.svg and the Carson Range JPEG. Now that's it. --Geopgeop 09:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days, any progress so far? --Geopgeop 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

my sad svg

hey, just curious why the SVG CR seal on 500-series got nixed during your cleanup? thanks. lensovet 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington Center Mall copmpromise

A compromise might have developed at the above discusiion that you earlier participated in. Come by and chip in your ideas, if you wish. youngamerican (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the CU request against Kurt Leyman

The complaint that the IP in question is a company proxy and that blocking it is blocking other users should be taken up at WP:ANI. I'm not sure how CU can help at this point. Thatcher131 11:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I pointed out your comment to the blocking admin and we'll see where it goes from there. Thatcher131 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, my only concern is that this person is claiming to be someone else but is actually Kurt or a meat of Kurt. I'd think we'd need to get verification somehow that this is a proxy. But hey, if it's decided to reverse my block, I have no problem with that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NY villages and towns

You placed a merge tag on several villages and towns in New York state that shared the same name. You should probably be aware that villages are separate corporate entities within a town. Towns are minor civil divisions and the villages are typically the incorporated places within them. There is more information at Administrative divisions of New York. Polaron | Talk 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The town is probably a safer choice for linking to since a village with the same name as a town is usually wholly within that town. Another option is to treat towns and villages as separate municipalities and just check where exactly the roads you refer to pass through. Polaron | Talk 02:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these should definitely not be merged as they're quite separate governmental entities.--Pharos 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest sorting them out carefully, and one at a time. Just because we're not sure what a transportation (or other) article is talking about doesn't mean we should cover up our ignorance by pretending the towns and villages are the same thing. Actually, the meaning is pretty clear from many of the articles (they're usually referring to the towns).--Pharos 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the villages are in some cases I think only a small proportion of the population of the towns. If anything it should be the towns that would get the undisambiguated title. In any case, this should probably be discussed at Talk:New York (for want of a better forum) before there's any wholesale change.--Pharos 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that just means that the town (of course by definition) is always bigger and sort-of more notable than the village. Don't think of it as a "town"; it's really what's called a "township" or a "sub-county" (to make something up). For relevant Wikiprojects, there's only WikiProject New York City, which I started a while back, and which is extremely inactive (and not terribly relevant to these towns and villages).--Pharos 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NH Route images

Please confirm that all NH route images now have SVG images to replace the PNG images which {{routeboxnh}} uses so that the PNG images can be deleted as obsolete. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Presence Is Requested...

...at Talk:Inner Loop (Rochester) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#Routebox Discussion, Part 3. --TMF ^{T - C} 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Diamond signs

When you run out of things to do (not likely), Warning sign could use some SVG images to replace the GIFs that are used there currently. —Scott5114↗ 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Project tags...

...until someone agrees that WikiProject categories belong in articlespace, or I get a Meta: or Project: namespace, those tags are pretty much the only way to tie a project to its articles. If there any other structural solutions, I'd be interested in hearing them. —Rob (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Counties in the NYS Routebox

I'm beginning to warm up to the new routebox, I'll admit. However, there is one more thing I'd (as well as a few other users on the WP:NYSR talk page) like to see: a list of counties that the route passes through.

As you said before, the point of a routebox is to give a basic overview of the route and to help a reader quickly visualize where the route travels. I think that listing the counties that the route traverses, not in the junctions, but just as one row above the major junction row, as is present in the current routebox would be great. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PR-52 article

For the PR-52 article you made, could you please create SVG images of the PR-52, PR-18, and PR-1 shields? The shield looks like this: File:Puerto Rico 1 Highway.PNG. This shield though is PNG. Andros 1337 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

You certaintly have an umm... "interesting" userpage. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Autobahnbox mass edits.

Would you please mind stopping screwing with the bloody template? There was a discussion about it, on numerous occasions even, you were the only one who wanted NOT to keep the exit lists in the infobox, and yet you do a bloody edit on every goddamn article that is out there.

I have reverted all your edits. Accept consensus or just shut up. --doco (☏) 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 86 (east)

In Interstate 86 (east), why did you change the link to U.S. Route 219 to US 219 (NY), which just redirects to the former? Powers 13:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI/jajaja

User:SPUI/jajaja has been nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion. Please see the deletion page to vote and comment.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

Hi,

The MfD discussion on your "jajaja" subpage was closed with a "delete" consensus. I have deleted the subpage and its associated talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

tfd Template:Trans-Canada

the {{tfd}} tag should definitely not be visible on the main space, all editing details and internal workings should certainly not be seen by the annonymous user that just looks up things on wikipedia. By including tfd between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, that particular proposal will be seen by editors, but will not show up on the main space. Qyd^(talk)04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the tag is not included, it is only visible to those who happen to look at the template itself or have the time to pay attention to TFD. On the other hand, when it is included, it is seen by all who use the articles it is in. This is why the tfd template is in small text.

I see your point (although I don't entirely agree); however, the fact that you are removing the template from every page somehow contradicts this rationale. Peace. - Qyd^(talk)15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Truce, olive branch, smile, what have you...

Northenglish has smiled at you! I know you're the one who nominated {{smile}} for tfd, but here's a personal message instead. We haven't always agreed in the past, but I'd like to put that behind us, as I think there's definitely some common ground. Thank you so much for your help completing the County routes in New Jersey merge; I knew I had let some minor things fall through the cracks. SPUI, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship! -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cardiff Bus Route 53

Hi, I notice that you removed a {{prod}} tag from the article Cardiff Bus Route 53 last week; this article has now been AfD'ed, and since you deprodded it I thought you might want to comment on the AfD debate. -- AJR | Talk 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn to clean up better!

[28] --Analogdemon (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

aribtration

Has there been any conclusion / decision by arbcom yet? I've noticed the /worskship and /proposed decision pages are more or less inactive now. atanamir 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you indefinitely over your little experiment at User:SPUI/jajaja: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, while you have made a large number of useful contributions, you have also spent much of your time in deliberately wasting the time which other contributors to the project. The page in question cannot be described as promoting the encyclopedia, and seems deliberately designed to disable the access for certain users who do not have sufficient free memory on their computer. I shall inform the Arbitration Committee of this block, as you are on probation. Physchim62 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked .. though if SPUI has been acting badly, please assign him a reasonable block. There's simply no community consensus for an indefinite block. --Cyde↔Weys 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Shortened to a one week block for violation of probation, with a request to ArbCom to extend this to one year. Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd intended to post a reminder that SPUI is not supposed to be naughty, by order of the Committee in the last case he was involved in. I don't agree with psychim62's recommendation of an extension, though (I can say that because I've recused myself as a clerk from that case). That whole nasty page should be flushed, because it's an ad for the kind of prankery that has no place here. But SPUI does excellent work elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|uh... what the fuck? In addition to the ridiculousness of this, note [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#User:SPUI/jajaja]]: Mackensen [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Proposed decision#... is banned for two months and placed on Probation|was an arbitrator at the time of my probation]] and "voted" to undelete.}}

Attempted discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Today's SPUI blocking --SPUI (T - C) 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More on the probation

(to go on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision if I'm unblocked)

The proposed decision will place most of the parties on probation. As has been confirmed by Tony Sidaway in a conversation on IRC, this means that admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation, as the blocking admin can define disruption. As it is being done with implied ArbCom approval, whether such approval exists or not, other admins are less likely to unblock (and such unblocks may not be proper - see below). He also said that "if you screw up enough to deserve mandated probation, we figure that you're probably a disruptive person and any subsequent blocks are probably right". An earlier probation has recently resulted in a week-long block on me for a page I made over a year ago, and recent actions I took to save the code (mostly in comment tags, to avoid screwing up my user page) before deletion. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Today's SPUI blocking and [29] for details.

An earlier incident resulted in Tony Sidaway banning me from any page I had recently used the word "fuck" on. As above, disruption is in the eye of the blocking admin only. Tony also made it clear in that case that any unblock would not override the ban, and would be misleading in that I could still not "legally" edit according to Wikipedia:Banning policy. See User talk:SPUI#Edit summaries.

Thus, I dispute the appropriateness of the probation. It basically tells admins "look, here's someone you can block and get away with it". --SPUI (T - C) 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. It would be interesting if the "fuck" rule were applied more liberally, though. - brenneman ^{L} 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have made several errors, in the first instance attributing to me words ("admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation") made by you yourself, which I did not confirm but in fact disputed on at least two occasions, and in the second instance attributing to me words ("Basically, if you screw up enough to deserve mandated probation, we figure that you're probably a disruptive person and any subsequent blocks are probably right.") written on IRC by another user. Simetrical. You have also conflated blocks and bans. You were banned in an earlier instance (and I lifted the bans after long discussions and undertakings from you). In the current instance someone has blocked you. Please correct your errors.

On the probation, I have already advised you to go to the Arbitration Committee and seek to be relieved from it, should you find it too onerous. Administrators do not set the terms, they only enforce the probation. One of the terms of your probation is that you can be blocked for provocative edits. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You "disputed" my statement, but nothing you said actually contradicted it. As for the misattribution, sorry. I have not conflated blocks and bans; Pnyschim62 banned me. --SPUI (T - C) 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you admit that I disputed your statement, you can hardly claim that I confirmed it. even if you think that nothing I said contradicted it.

I'll pin the difference down here. You say that "admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation". That would mean that someone could block you for disagreeing with them, or editing after midnight UTC, or any old thing. I say a different standard applies, and I stated it in the IRC conversation: "administrators can only block you under probation if you act provocatively or disruptively" and "the idea is that the admin decides what is disruptive." Administrators make decisions on disruption all the time, it's what we're for.

Physchim62 also has conflated blocks and bans. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"The admin decides what is disruptive" - thus, an admin can call "editing after midnight UTC" disruptive and block for it.

As for conflation of blocks and bans, why do you think that? He has banned me for a week under the terms of the ArbCom probation:

"After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, SPUI can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation."

I see nothing about blocks, only bans. --SPUI (T - C) 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An administrator cannot call "editing after midnight UTC" disruption. The administrator decides what is disruptive, but he does not determine what is disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If an admin can decide that using "fuck" in edit summaries is disruption, why not? --SPUI (T - C) 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Under your probation you're enjoined from provocative edits. Your use of those words was provocative and, in the edit summaries of articles, particularly sensitive. Other editors make the occasional expletive, but you had made quite a habit of it [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] and reacted in a characteristically combative manner to polite suggestions that your behavior was a problem. Moreover you cannot complain that other editors get away with it. Those editors are not on probation for provocative editing. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right again. You decided that those edits were provocative and banned me for them. In other words, you decided what was provocative. --SPUI (T - C) 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There was no doubt in my mind that your actions in the circumstances were provocative, and your response to polite requests that you stop was doubly so. Now be honest: were you surprised when administrators said that your repeated, copious use of expletives in edit summaries was provocative? ? --Tony Sidaway 05:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I bloody well was surprised, actually. --SPUI (T - C) 05:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the block was necessary to bring you to your senses. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you decided what was provocative. --SPUI (T - C) 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Stipulated. That is normal for a probation. --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my argument again. Please stalk me no more. --SPUI (T - C) 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're still making a leap of logic in your argument. You assume that, because a single administrator decides when you're breaking your probation, an administrator can make up just any old excuse to block you and say that it's under your probation. The one example that you gave was a ban from articles for provocative editing, use of many expletives in editing. Your response to the news that some editors found it provocative at the time was characteristically pugnacious and (of course provocative). You still maintain that it took you as a complete surprise that use of the word "fuck" in a large number of article edit summaries in a single day could be seen as at all provocative or inappropriate. I in turn think that you are forced into that difficult position by your apparent wish to discredit the principle of probation itself. --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose asking you two two quit it is pointless? SPUI, I feel your pain in the arbitrary nature of "provocative," but you do stir the pot you must admit. I'd prefer that people tried talking to you rather than blocking you (or nominating things for deletion) rather than blocking you, but I can't make them. For example, did anyone try asking you about what the hell you're "yesyesYES" page was about?
brenneman ^{L} 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided not to respond to Tony unless he says something new.

Actually jajaja is Spanish laughter (J is pronounced like English H) - I believe jajaja is a redirect. I made the page as an experiment in steadily-increasing font sizes, and found the product rather amusing.

Oh, and I assume you're not going to do anything about this ridiculous block? --SPUI (T - C) 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppose you recognised that your problem is your provocative behavior, and promised not to do it again? I guess the direct approach counts as "something new" by my standards. --Tony Sidaway 10:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand - I don't intend to be provocative. Thus, as I can't predict what others will find proocative, I can't avoid "provocative behavior". --SPUI (T - C) 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am doing something about your block, wise-guy. Talking things over will (hopefully) lead to a more stable solution than a straight unblock would. I agree totally that the "provocative" tag is too-easily applied, and note that in this case at least no effort was made to avoid SPUI-bashing. I think the application to ArbCom is a good idea, but you should put in some diffs to back up your statement. - brenneman ^{L} 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Click yet?

Go pirate (by which, of course, I mean to don a pirate hat and pay to enter a movie theater) it and watch. You'll appreciate the new userpage material. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

New York subway stations

I have come across several NY subway station articles that do not start by saying they are about a subway station and assume one already knows what all the acronyms mean. Does anyone take care of these articles especially? It looks like a big job to bring them up to standard. I noticed your commen on the list of NY subway stations and thought you might know about it.Billlion 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple request

Sometimes, you do good work. At times, you are a useful wikipedian. Unfortunately, you have a strong tendency to juvenile stunts and boundary pushing and generally immature and disrespectful behavior towards others.

What I am going to ask you to do is quite simple: grow up, come in from the cold, join the community in a serious mature adult responsible way. Knock off the cheap tricks, and be helpful and friendly to others. It is really that simple.

Unlike some other disruptive users for whom I have no respect and little hope that they can ever grow up and not act like fools, I think otherwise about you. You've had your fun (though it cannot have been that much fun, right?) but now it is perhaps time to discover a more mature and adult fun, the fun of doing something helpful and charitable and usefully productive for the world while having fun with friends who care about the same thing. If you can't do that, it is probably time to find a new hobby.

But if you can... and I think you can, then this would be a good time.

You could start by cleaning all the idiotic stuff off your userpage and getting serious as a contributor.

--Jimbo Wales 22:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah. I was thinking of redirecting my user page to my talk page, but now I'm not so sure, as it will look like I was pressured to do so. --SPUI (T - C) 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You could do the mature thing and do what's right, regardless of what motives you think it will look like you may have had for it. I agree with Jimbo; you've done lots of useful things, but you also have done a lot of silly things. If you'll find some other outlet for your silly things where it's more acceptable, you can be a very good contributor here. *Dan T.* 00:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a good contributor here. I'd prefer if people would help me with stuff like Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Numbered Highways rather than harrassing me. --SPUI (T - C) 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that you are a good contributor here, but I'd also recommend cleaning up or redirecting your user page, regardless of whether it's because of pressure or your own voliton. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 00:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I hereby command SPUI to not redirect his user-page to his talk. - brenneman ^{L} 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no pressure my man. Do it because you want to do it. The fact that other people may be happy about it is just a bonus, not a reason not to do it. You talk about people harassing you, well, the easy way to make that happen is to stop doing things that appear to be designed to harass others.--Jimbo Wales 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The boss gives good advice. Construct evidence supporting your viewpoints on the talk pages of articles that you spy a problem with, thereby avoiding edit wars and the like. Take the advice on the highway arbcom case, and take it to heart that sufficient edvidence can sustain your stance on the matter. Avoid silly actions that don't hold any relevance to the encyclopedia. Give contirbutions and productive statements, not jokes and playtime.

If you want to play the silly, misunderstood editor, it would behoove you to leave this out of wikipedia resources and direct such energy to mainspace conributions. Such actions do not convince your fellow editors of your good intent and such blocks will probably continue based upon your ongoing behavior. It would therfore be in your best intrests to clean up your act and stop mucking about akin to a playground. Its your choice to continue these games and I don't personally endorse these positions but I think the new road to being a proper wikipedian is your best chance. -Zero^Talk 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Is there not anyone else in this whole encyclopedia that people can give advice to? But hey, SPUI, while we're handing it out, here's a useful tip: If you apply some pressure to your perineum instead of shaking it, you can avoid that last drop falling into your knickers. - brenneman ^{L} 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with SVG bug

I know you don't like talk page templates, but I went ahead and created one for the NJ WP anyway at {{NJSCR}}. Unfortunately, despite the claim that the SVG bug has been fixed, I can't get Image:County_blank.svg to appear on the right side. I've tried ?action=purge and what not, but no luck.

Help, please? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was the problem! -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

SVG question

Hi SPUI, just a quick SVG question ... is it possible to have a path whose stroke is directionally striped? I.e. if the path is a semicircle, the entire length, half the stroke's thickness is red, and the other half is blue? Is such a thing even possible? I'm using inkscape and can't figure out how to do it. If I do a pattern stroke, then the pattern is just "overlaid" - so if the pattern is horizontal, and the path is curved, then the pattern won't curve with the curve - quite annoying and not what I want.
Anyway any insight you might have would be much appreciated. Thanks! lensovet 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop what?

That page is crap. If you don't want it deleted, I'll bring it to AFD. It's five names! What use does it serve? 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Tuesday, July 4, 2006, 07:07 (UTC)

Kindly explain what the heck this page is for? It's pointless. --69.145.123.171 07:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

List of railroads with a nickname ending in "Road"

I didn't - I simply restored the tag that was removed. removal of those tags, whether they should be there or not, tends to be a sure-fire way of getting the deletion approved. better off fighting it at the appropriate talk page or with the person who put it there.Bridesmill 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Then replace it with an AFD at least; seems it's been prodded before with the tag removed; whihc just doesn't look healthy.Bridesmill 07:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, we are grateful you take time to add edit summaries but you might want to take care of your language Special:Contributions/SPUI; relisting - got jack shit, it got jack shit on PR and adding a more descriptive reason for your edits; rv, revert, blah. Thanks 82.38.100.8 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Florida Road Shields

I stareted making some of my own, than I noticed they were different from yours. The reason is I used the sign designated as "Independent Freeway Use". Any idea what that designation means? TimL 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohio Turnpike "original research" dispute

Submitted to the Mediation Cabal for outside opinions. I disagree with your contention, as the alternate routes can be found on any map of Ohio, but I will respect the MedCab's decision. --Larrysphatpage 01:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My signature

Whoa! How did you get the dots over the r? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 04:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my signature

Thank you very, very much for arranging a way to use the Umlaut R without using images! —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

The case has been closed and the final decisions published on above's link. -- Drini 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 405 (Washington)

Out of curiosity, why did you tag the infobox on the I-405 page for cleanup? As far as I could tell, it was fine.

I did however add the missing yrcom data, as well as corrected the browse links at the bottom, and removed the tag. Was there something else I was missing? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia (country)

Could you make it clear if you're vote was Support or Oppose on this requested move. Rmhermen 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Exit sign

Hello SPUI, you used the {{helpme}} on Template talk:Exit sign. Please note that the tag is for use by newcomers for help with basic editing, and it should only be used on your talk page. Please consider asking at the Village Pump (technical) for an answer to your query. Cheers, Tangotango 14:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from (1) using the {{helpme}} template on a page other than your user talk page and (2) using the template to get help with non-newcomer editing. Thanks, Tangotango 14:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Helpme

Please use the {{helpme}} only on a user talk page. It is not for any other pages.

In reference to the helpme you placed, I made a minor change to the page, go and see if it is what you want. --No1lakersfan 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I was unable to help you wth the image. However, I need to tell you that there is something wrong with the map of New Jersey Railroads. When I try to put it on a bage, it only displays as a thin horizontal line. But, if I click on it (when I use it as a thumbnail) I can see the full image. Could you try to modify it to where it would work on a normal page? --No1lakersfan 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you could make it smaller, to where it would work on Wikipedia? If not, no problem. --No1lakersfan 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, thanks for telling me about that. I have not been able to get your template to work without drastically changing the way it looks. You may want to try asking somewhere else to see if they are able to do anything for you. --No1lakersfan 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

How do you get your signature to have the links to the talk page and contributions page at the end of your usernatme? I would like to try to put that on mine. --No1lakersfan 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What all do I put into that box so that it works like yours? I tried some stuff and it didn't work so I removed it. --No1lakersfan 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried that but I get a lot of crap. Is there something I am doing wrong? I remove it so I do not display the crap I get. --No1lakersfan, 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that got it to work right. I appreciate your help. I knew there was something I wasn't doing right. --Willy No1lakersfan (T - C) 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

highway question

What is the difference between a primary and a secondary highway? I was going to expand some articles WV state routes, but I was not sure what was what. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. i did not know if there was a Wikipedia consensus. I will check out some sources and see if WV DOT has a designation. If not, I will stick to using descritions like "two lane" or "four lane". youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I do sympathise with your comments, but I'm stub sorting anyway.--Runcorn 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NJT rail line

...can you explain what you did and why?... lensovet 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the other issues (I do like the fact that lines are entered more nicely now, though code readability is nil right now), can you put back the Category inclusion that we had on the old template? Thanks. lensovet 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We can add flexibility by just adding a cat boolean to the template. if it's not specified (or = yes), then we do the automatic cat insertion. if it's =no, then we don't. way easier than going through each article one by one and inserting cats into them. as for morristown line, well you could easily insert another #switch case to test for the line variable - simple as that. if anything, the template makes it easier to change categories, because you change it in the template once and the changes take place everywhere at the same time. lensovet 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wayne-Route 23

You might want to follow this external link to an NJ Transit system-expansion project notice specifically describing this proposed park-and-ride station.

BTW: I've navigated the West Belt Road Interchange myself. They're doing something to that interchange, and that's the very interchange for which they advertised for an off-site road-improvement contract back in March. --Temlakos 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Interstate 405 infobox

Thanks for your response, I figured that's what the cleanup tag was about. However, there's nothing on Wikipedia policy/guideline/etc. that I can find saying that infoboxes must be less than a screen long. I think it's detrimental to populate Category:Wikipedia infobox cleanup with almost exclusively state routes simply because you feel the infobox is too long. (In fact, many of the infoboxes on California state routes in that category are less than a screen long, at least on my screen.)

This all being said, I do prefer your infoboxes on User:SPUI/onthecaca and User:SPUI/SR 599, as well as the one we use in the New Jersey project. Perhaps rather than simply tagging all the articles, it's time to re-open civil discussion? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

KS TPK, exit 127

I assumed they would leave off the direction (as the northbound signs do), but they did get it right. Here's some other pages from that site you can get pictures of signs from: I-35, 335 and 470, I-70. Hope that helps. Do you think FAC will let us get by with the sign templates? —Scott5114↗ 07:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cattle Pens are, well, cattle pens. It's pretty much an exit to a bridge with a fence at both ends for cows. —Scott5114↗ 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ontario highways

The existence of a redirect really isn't the point; the point is that the numbers aren't in the title that actually appears on the category page. (You do know, I assume, that pipetext only affects where a title sorts, and doesn't change how the title displays, right?) Bearcat 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not about whether the stretch of road has highway number signs or not; it's about whether that highway number is physically in the title of the Wikipedia article or not. And kindly post responses on the appropriate talk page, not on the Canadian noticeboard itself. Bearcat 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly is not a pointless distinction. And anyway, that's precisely why I'm soliciting outside comment in the first place. Bearcat 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it pointless to insist that Wikipedia categories be sorted on data points that are actually present in the title of the article? Put yourself in the shoes of a non-roadgeek for a minute: they're going to take one look at the category page, and be completely confused by the way it's sorted. Wikipedia is not here to do what you think is logical even if it's counter-intuitive to almost everybody else on the planet; we need to do what's clearest and least confusing to an average reader, the one who isn't a roadgeek with extensive knowledge of Ontario's hidden 7000 highway numbers and what the Thousand Island Parkway's signed highway number was thirty years ago. Bearcat 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When you're looking at the category page, and the title is the only thing you can see, the title means everything. The content doesn't mean anything until you actually get to it. Bearcat 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list II

I'm sorry. I looked at Talk:I-95 exit list and saw an actual consensus (meaning no vocal objections) to transcluding the exit list, at least until all states on I-95 have their own articles.

I took your comment, "I had always been told that content should not be transcluded in this way, but personally I see no problem with this. I might play around with the placement of the edit link," (emphasis added) as reluctant support for transclusion.

What would you support we do with the exit list instead, as it's pointless to randomly have four states have the exit list in one place and the rest in another? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine idea eventually, but then what happens to the exit lists for SC, NC, DE, and PA? I support the redirect idea on principle, but not at the cost of those four exit lists. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! The transclusion was just a temporary solution until the other states had articles. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Or I'll just do it myself. *wink* -- Northenglish (talk) -- 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as an update, the switchover is complete, and all of my slashed page names, including Interstate 95/Florida exit list have been speedily deleted at my request. I still say you should have went to AfD instead of TfD though. :-P -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations in US Route Infoboxes

Heya, why were the citations removed from the infoboxes for routes 1 thru 6 (i think) regarding the length and date formed. As far as I know the site that they linked to led to the site where that information was obtained. Although I'm pretty sure it wasn't directly listed on the page the reference linked to...is that the reason you removed them? Stratosphere 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I now realize you added a citation needed because those articles never had that reference! My apologies. Stratosphere 02:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

Your conduct on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 8 has become disruptive. The next time you act disruptively on that page you will be banned from it per your probation in the Pedophile Userbox Arbitration case. --Essjay 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I also put some pretty stiff warnings on WP:AN/I and WP:DRV over this. Then I noticed that SPUI had been edit warring over this and was tempted to block. But I'll hold off. The warnings remain. Any continuation or resumption of this disruptive behavior will result in action under the first of SPUI's two probations. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I'm not aware that I'm doing anything disruptive, it's rather hard for me to comply. --SPUI (T - C) 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, I agree with you to an extent that words like "provocative" and "disruptive" are too vague and being used too liberally against you. (I still for the life of me can't understand how your jajaja page fell under either.) However, I don't think there can be any debate that re-opening a closed TfD debate is disruptive.

I hope you've accepted my smiley olive branch above. I just really think you ought to cool your jets. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ontario et allii

Yeah, more complaints about you, big bloody suprise. On Category talk:Ontario provincial highways and the lot, any chance you could pretend to be someone who talks nicely to people he disagrees with? "Common sense - something you all lack," is uncivil, even if it is true.
brenneman ^{L} 02:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

US 41 end

When I edited:

• The article was saying it ends at US 1 at half the places and SR A1A at the other half. (See next bullet.)
• It mentioned the extension to SR A1A but didn't clearly mention the truncation in 2000. (I thought what the article said was that between 1953 and 2000 the route was gradually extended to A1A -- I didn't know I had to interpret that as being extended in 1953 and truncated in 2000.)
• Google maps said it ends at SR A1A -- [39].

So I changed the rest of the places to read SR A1A instead of US 1. Thanks for correcting my edit.

BTW can we be sure [40] is more reliable than Google maps? -- Paddu 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason the photos weren't loading so I could only see the text. Thanks for the clarification. -- Paddu 22:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Ok.Now i understand.I didn't understand the GDFL perfectly anyway-it said "Free Documentataion Liscense" which made me think it fit everything.HurricaneCraze32 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sortkey

No reason really. Little bits of whitespace like that sometimes inexplicably bother me. Did that mess up sorting? —Scott5114↗ 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Opt-out list

Dunno why, but somehow I got the idea you were already on my opt-out list. Which is why I left one copy of your full signature in the section, removing only redundant clutter in the section. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1/9

Great idea to create an article for the U.S. Route 1/9 concurrency. Might it make more sense to name the article separating the 1 and the 9 with either a dash or an ampersand, rather than a slash? I always sound out the name of the concurrency as "1 and 9" (or more accurately "1 'n 9"), which may correspond better to the ampersand. From my informal review of signs, it seems that 1-9 appears much more often than 1&9, but I don't recall seeing 1/9 anywhere. Any thoughts???? Alansohn 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation re state usage of 1/9. I saw that you had created redirects for just about every possible combination and permutation of US/U.S., Route/Highway and the numbers 1 and 9. You'd be hard pressed to guess a link that won't work, but the 1/9 may be the least likely to be guessed. Alansohn 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ted

[41] --Analogdemon (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sucks ass. --SPUI (T - C) 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Hi there,

I didn't intentionally remove the tags, just I had copied and added to the Nomenclature section while you had created the article by copying said content, so I didn't see a problem with overwriting.

I readded the category thing, but didn't spot the tags.

However, you are supposed to provide detailed reasons for the tags on the talk page (i.e. should have been detailed on Talk:Freeway 12 days ago). If you could provide specifics there, and on Talk:Types of road, that'd be great. Otherwise, the tags should be removed.

I agree the section needs improved - it needs extra countries added, and some countries detailed in more concise but general terms - to avoid imbalance in the page makeup, and oversized article if the extra countries are added. But that is not necessarily an immediate need to adorn it with templates. Making such suggestions on the talk page is more appropriate for such a long term "improvement" ambition.

zoney ♣ talk 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

please respond

Please respond on my user page, you didn't explain what you were talking about. --mboverload@ 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SVG images

I noticed you added previously shield graphics for many highway-related articles. How are these SVG images generated? Thanks. Seicer (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

SPUI - you carried out a cut and paste move at Super two (to what is now Two-lane limited access road) some time back. I'm going to repair the page histories - leaving your new article with just its history (pretty much your edits), and adding the older history to Two-lane limited access road. There is a "move" function for a reason. Don't do cut and paste moves! It breaks the edit history of pages.

Anyways - this is just a notice, as to carry out the fix, I temporarily will be deleting Super two, and it'll temporarily be the old article. Don't panic! I'll be returning it to its current state after fixing the histories.

If you want to see what I'll be doing, check out Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves; section A more complex case.

zoney ♣ talk 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All done, no hitches - feel free to take a look at both articles. Anyways, if the contents remaining at freeway are to be moved, we will be using the move page function, not cut-and-paste.

zoney ♣ talk 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OC Transpo pages

I believe thay fall under the "etc." setion of A7. There is no assertion of importance of any of these routes. --DarkAudit 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional They are now under one AfD. --DarkAudit 00:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again

Please join the civil discussion on WT:WASH regarding naming conventions and the infobox so that we can get consensus and put this ugly mess behind us. -- NORTH ^talk 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Rock on Stratosphere 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Little ol' me

Having fun messing around with all my stuff? My watchlist is reaching 500 edits from your stuff. I understand what you're doing, but dang, calm down and let me explain some things.

• #1: I put all those route shields in that Category:North Carolina State Highways category because they needed to be organized somehow and not haphazardly floating around. I was going to put them in a Category:North Carolina route shields, but I didn't have time to switch them all. Plus, some are floating around on the Wikipedia Commons, and I don't have time to go look for all those. I'm not as experienced at all the shortcuts as you... obviously... but I'm working on it.
• #2: The unsourced pics. Some I created, some I didn't. I didn't know which lisence went with what so I used attribution because it forced anyone referencing to it to put where it came from, like with any report. The articles look better with the pictures, but I understand following copyright issues. I didn't claim anything that was mine as my own.
• #3 The business (Bus) plate. () I made that thing because when you shrink the regular business plate down to 20 px, you can't read a darn thing. There is an alt plate for the alternate plate that seems to do the same thing. But, if you don't like it, get rid of it; it's not that big of a deal.
• #4 Business Interstate 40 (North Carolina) merger. I disagree with it, explained in the talk section.

By the way, I really appreciate all the work you've done on the article's I've seen, making maps, and .svg's. I'm not angry or anything, I just wanted to explain myself so you don't start hating my edits and trying to get me banned. By the way, how do you do all that stuff so fast? Got a bot working for ya? --TinMan 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

MA Route 213

I'd like to use the image at http://www.robotikon.com/loop_connector/495.jpg in Route 213 in order to demonstrate that it is signed as the "Loop Connector." How do I go about getting permission to use the image? (The last time I uploaded an image, I got slapped on the wrist for a copyright violation.) Tckma 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

SPUI, good buddy, good pal. Even on pages that have no controversy surrounding their naming convention, you're not supposed to fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Many of your edits that showed up in my watchlist today (mostly WP:NJSCR) consisted solely of you "fixing" New Jersey State Highway X links that already had piped alternatives. -- NORTH ^talk 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

US Route XX (New York) Articles

Greetings. Do you have any plans to expand the "US Route XX (New York)" articles into full-blown articles in the future? If so, I'll prepare the NYSR standards for a few changes regarding the browse. --TMF ^{T - C} 07:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Just stop. I'm trying hard to get you what you want in Washington, but you have to be willing to give an inch. Taking I-195 and I-80 out of the NJTP infobox is just.... no. -- NORTH ^talk 10:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signage at the I-95/I-80 split has turnpike signs continuing east towards the GWB. I'll look for a source. It would have been nice if you'd explained that in your edit summary. -- NORTH ^talk 10:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

pic from aaroads.com -- NORTH ^talk 10:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Northbound no, southbound yes. (Note how the new signage says SOUTH 95/TPK TO 46, not SOUTH 95 TO TPK/46.)

Basically, when it came under the jurisdiction of the Turnpike Authority, it became part of the turnpike. -- NORTH ^talk 11:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

End Turnpike sign about two-thirds of the way down the page, located at the Port Authority tollbooth approach. -- NORTH ^talk 11:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who insists on making the infoboxes as short as possible, I'm curious as to why you put the historical tidbit in.

Also, what's your reasoning for using the less accurate locations for the junctions? No major gripes, though. -- NORTH ^talk 11:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Interstate

Since it appears that you made some major edits to the infobox, could you please document them in the noinclude? That way others know how to use it. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also could you please double check your changes. They appear to have broken at least one Interstate Infobox at I-80. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

List of mayors of Manning, Alberta

You thought this should be merged; I merged it. Why do you think it should not be deleted? —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed that the reason for which the prod was removed had been resolved. A prod removal does not mean a prod may never be added again, and for different reasons, in all perpetuity. —Centrx→talk • 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OR on Middlesex CR 676

Thanks for tagging the actual statement you have issue with, you'll have to see HurricaneCraze32 for that.

For future reference, the {{original research}} tag you're using says "see talk page for details." It helps if you actually put details on the talk page. -- NORTH ^talk 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highway Sheild Bugs

Forgive me if I mentioned something that is old, but there are a few WI highway shields in your collection that will not display the 20 Pixel size in Wikipedia. I searched them all out to find that the following are affected

17, 29 (I tried to fix these and succeeded)

64, 66, 70, 143, 166 and 310.

I have built a draft page in my userspace [[42]] if you would like to look at the pictures. I hope not to have them in my space for long though. Thanks for your help in advance. --master_son^{Lets talk} 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

US 46 Map

Done and done. Thanks for letting me know. Stratosphere 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

1)I like the new template and it looks to be quite useful, but how do those highways in NC and OH violate existing naming conventions? What alternative do you suggest? 2) What is your source that West Huntington Bridge is the "common name." I agree with that take on the naming of the bridge (I am a local and that is what everyone calls it for the most part), but there are a couple people here that might object. The source would keep them quiet. Cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interstates in NY

I had a crazy idea tonight regarding every Interstate (well, for right now, every 3-digit Interstate) in New York. At the bottom of the Interstate infobox (on the 3-digits only, not the 2-digits unless they're divided by state), I would include a browse for New York routes, allowing for the Interstates to be linked from the browse of NY 390, for example regarding I-390, without "breaking" the browse function (i.e. prohibiting the reader from continually browsing routes in NY).

Since you have a wealth of knowledge regarding Interstates and the WP Interstate project, I felt it was necessary to obtain some feedback on this idea. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PA Highways

Very interesting finds there. Thanks for the info and the heads-up. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to (uh what) on the NY&O

I am redoing the entire New York & Ottawa Ry entry to the corrct information--Bonfire00 11:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC).--69.156.59.85 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources on NY&O

Citing my sources? Ok, I am the source. I've studied that rail line for years, I grew up beside it, my family worked on it and I work with a couple of other fellows whom also studied that particular line.--Bonfire00 11:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

What about the source on the bridge? Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only one that I can think of where the ceremonial name is used in the area is the Robert C. Byrd Bridge. It seems that folks around here respect Byrd and all he has brought to the area, but Rahall is seen as somewhat of a hack. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Ontario provincial highways

Hi, this is addressed to SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and William_Allen_Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Please stop edit warring over this. I don't want to have to protect, or to block either of you. Please both stop edit warring and discuss the question maturely. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I came to ask you if this redirect for Chemin du Roi (Quebec) should go straight to Quebec route 138 but I see you are aware of the editor who created it and have probably seen it already, just in case tho'... --Alf ^melmac 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We already have Royal Road, in Persia and will have one for the Sahara, if all of the Chemin du Roi is part of 138 the new redirect is better pointing there as the (Quebec) bit is a bit specific. Chemin du Roi is still a virgin too... --Alf ^melmac 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility

On a separate matter, some of your edit summaries are a little over-the-top lately. "revert crap" and variants thereof seem to have become a recurring theme (revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY, revert crap,revert incorrect crap again, revert inclusion of crap,revert inclusion of incorrect crap,fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is).

Please stop this. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It was crap... --SPUI (T - C) 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, you may want to consider this. I know this is just the way you talk and I personally don't mind it but it gives your antagonists ammunition for free. Haukur 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement requested

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:SPUI

--William Allen Simpson 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also don't take my inquiry personally please. It's nothing against you, I just want to know if we're all going to be subject to the letter of the Arbcom's ruling and probation or if there is leeway in it. Or on the darker side if it's going to be enforced unequally among the parties to the arbcom. I would hate to think I could edit war today and then next week you could get blocked for the same thing. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Illinois expressway vs. freeway

Done. Didn't know how to break it into sections, so I just threw it in there with usage terms. I'll see if I can grab a pic of the "Motorized vehicles, farm implements, pedestrians and bicyclists PROHIBITED" freeway sign for kicks. —Rob (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

template njt-sta

spui, i'm reallly curious, why are you so bent on making this template "useful" for substing? Take a look at Wikipedia:Template_substitution#Arguments_for_substitution and let me know which one of those bullet points is applicable to the template. I'm not seeing one. lensovet 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In a way "Using certain templates hides wikitext from newcomers, which prevents them from learning how to use it." applies. If we use templates for what should be a simple link, we get scope creep of a sort, in that noobs see these templates and want to make their own, and soon we have templates for every possible link type, and what we have is much more complicated than simple linking. But really it's just easier to deal with simple links than with a template like this. --SPUI (T - C) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

eh, but then at arguments against substitution we also have

• A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically-inclined.
• Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation.

personally, I don't see the need for substing for three main reasons:

1. Without substing, we can have shorthand types and designations. We can also have a default value for the type, i.e. don't specify a type, and then station is automatically made into NJT
2. Not substing guarantees that the links will always look the same and will always link to the same article name format
3. Errors/typos are easier to fix, because you fix them in one place only, in contrast to (two places in) piped links

Regardless, I think that there is neither a strong case, based on "guidelines", as to whether or not we should subst. Therefore, I'd judge it on the usability merits. The way I see it, there's plenty to gain in terms of usability for the Non-substed version, and very little, if anything, for the substed one.

P.S. As for noobs, I doubt too many would use it anyway. lensovet 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

man, what is this? you don't see the need to subst, yet you edit the template to make it substable! where's the logic? If you don't see the need to subst, then leave the template alone and let me use it as I wish. at least me and temalakos will be fine with it.lensovet 01:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

cool, but that wasn't my point. my question isn't "why do you want to subst it in its current form", it's "why do you want this template, no matter what form it takes, to be substable". So go back and reread what I wrote in that light i guess.

Aye cpn, I have seen the light :\ lensovet 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother asking what the difference is or recalling that this template used to be used in another template. Here's my question: if only two people use the template, and you don't, and they don't want to it to be subst-friendly, can we just have our way? Nowhere does it say that templates can't be links. take a look at {{see also}}. lensovet 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highways

Hi I noticed you were interested in moving Wisconsin highways to "State Trunk Highway", but is that really beneficial to Wikipedia? I know that's one of two official designations, but I'd definitely not the one that would conform to the Common Names policy. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. When taken as a choice between your preferred Highway XX (Wisconsin) and the STH I do prefer yours. STH is the most official, but is definitely not a common term. Much less ambigious then California or Washington. I would support any moves to your preferred naming in this particular state. Also if you want to propose a change to the infobox to eliminate STH I would support that as well. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that. What would be your feelings on including a sub line in the infobox however (probably a small unbolded font) with the common name in it? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I suppose as long as both names are in the first sentence bolded it should be ok. And give the STH to the infobox and the article to the common name. Seems a good balance.

Re Freeway/motorway/whatever category

Thanks for the invitation to rejoin the discussion, but this looks controversial and I know I'm uninformed about it. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Michigan 59 and a request

Hey, thanks for pointing out the map problem with M-59, the GIS data I had was a few years old so I overlooked that one.

Also, while I can decipher the code of the Infobox road, it might be beneficial to others to document all the options and how to use them either between the noincludes or on the talk page.

Cheers. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Route 66 sortkey

Why did you remove the space in the sortkey? --SPUI (T - C) 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. My bot did it because when I coded it, I assumed that spaces at the start or end of a wikilink (or the components of a piped wikilink) were unneeded. I see now that this is not the case for category sortkeys. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll fix up my code to handle this properly. Cheers, CmdrObot 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Road Infobox

Heya, do me a favor and have a look at User:Stratosphere/InfoboxRoad and make any changes or add paramaters that I missed. Want to get it documented for the MI road project (in case other people join! *gasp*) and it'd be beneficial to the template talk page once it gets fleshed out. Thanks. Cheers! Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Two requests

One: can this talk page please be archived. I've got a fast connection, and it still takes time to load and scroll down here.

Two: the changes you have made to Minnesota state highway articles are causing consternation. Can we please have a discussion about the naming conventions of Minnesota road articles before moving any more or changing the names and links in articles. My father worked for the Minnesota Department of Transportation his entire career, and I assure you, neither he nor anyone else actually refers to them as "Trunk Highways" in conversation or common use, though they are designated "T.H." on maps. Jonathunder 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Highway 33

Then talk to User:Tony Sidaway. He's not hesitant to give out blocks.

Tell you what: I'm off the WP:MNSH project. You guys can figure it out yourselves. Since it's apparently impossible for me to come up with a highway name and a highway article that meets standards, it's a total waste of time for me to be doing articles about highways. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cfd2

That was a very good edit. Thank you. CfD seems to be one of the very few sane XfD pages out there - anything that will help keep it that way is a fantastic idea. TheGrappler 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't advise you to edit war over it, but I laid a comment down on the template talk page. CfD is so often used for "this category is complete crud, we need to rescope it or merge it into something else or just plain delete it (oh, and if you really do want to keep it, it still needs to be renamed)" that degenerating it into a keep vs delete thing (with all the horrid prospects of vote-counting) is just silly. I would hope, since there is a comment on the template talk page in support of your suggestion, that it will not simply be reverted without some discussion there. Like I said, I hope... this being Wikipedia, it doesn't mean it's gonna happen of course! TheGrappler 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, he did. I'm gonna go and moan on his talk page. TheGrappler 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 57 Proposed in Wisconsin?!

Where, may I ask did you find that out? Its interesting enough, but where is it going to go? --master_son^{Lets talk} 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nevada State Historic Places

I'd still like to have some constructive discussion about what should be done with it first, if you don't mind. Circeus 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Route 33 (New Jersey)

I'm happy to keep the **** See also, although I don't see the point given that it's linked to in 3 other places as well. Haven't you been told before to stop using profanities in edit summaries? -- NORTH ^talk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohio expressway system

You're probably right, that the article in question is better as a redirect. Actually, if you had instead wanted to send it up to AfD, I would have backed you on it. My only objection was in creating a POV dispute where nothing existed in talk to resolve the apparent "dispute". This, in my opinion, would have done nothing but further the backlog on Category:NPOV disputes. Cheers! -- SwissCelt 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Route 3 (New Jersey)

Given the fact that Route 3 (New Jersey) crosses the New Jersey Turnpike twice at each spur, and that these crossings are in two different municipalities (East Rutherford and Secaucus), why not show it as I had edited and show both spurs spurs separately? My other question is why show the historic NJ 2 (now NJ 17), rather than US 1, as the predecessor route in the infobox. Given that the Route 17 infobox points back to NJ 1, there is no article that refers back to US 1 as a predecessor. Why not leave US 1 as the predecessor on NJ 3? Alansohn 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

<3 SPUI

Snakes. Snakes on a motherfucking internet tube! watch out for the dump truck!!!1 <3 Project2501a 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Thanks for the point-out and for correcting. Can you look at WIS 47 as I got a blurb about the long cosigning but very shortened and brief. Is that a violation? Thanks in advance

It was a stupid mistake on my part and I should have known better on the two you saw. --master_son^{Lets talk} 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota State Highway 33

This is addressed to SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jonathunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Guys, please stop edit warring over this article. I am watching and I expect you as two very experienced Wikipedians to know that you should resolve differences by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

MN-33 again

Nothing I've ever done on Wikipedia is ever good enough for you, is it? Not one single lousy edit I've ever done on this encyclopedia is ever good enough for you. Or User:Tony Sidaway, User:Cyde, User:Kelly Martin, and anyone else who's ever made legitimate contributions to this "encyclopedia".

You're going to have to make another report to WP:AN/I, because the administrators (and the rest of the "good users" on here, unlike me) were busy debating about the existence of User:Kelly Martin/R. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1953 New Jersey state highway renumbering

I was curious about this edit you made. Since the article is about renumbering, doesn't it make much more sense to refer to the parkway and turnpike by their numbers, as that's what they were renumbered to? Take a look at this edit I made and see if you agree with my compromise. -- NORTH ^talk 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, okay, did not know that. Thanks. -- NORTH ^talk 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Browse Templates

Please take a look at Interstate 90 at the browse blocks at the bottom. I added the Wisconsin browse box to the group and found structure and color to be differing from both Washington's and Massachusetts'. This I saw was also true of the Michigan edition. I thought I'd point it out to you. Thx --master_son^{Lets talk} 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - those are an older system still used for some states. In theory long routes like I-90 will eventually be split by state (like I-95 is). --SPUI (T - C) 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Then another question. What about intrastate interstates - How are they handled (Ex. I-43.)?

Re: this edit

Then be my guest and change it on every NYS article then. --TMF ^{T - C} 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for coming across as a bit hasty earlier. I've since had some time to cool off and, after reading the WP:MoS, I'll make the necessary mods to the project standard and to the articles themselves as time permits. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vermont Naming Convention

I'm planning on creating a Vermont WikiProject to organize the Vermont state highway articles. However, being from New York, I have no idea what Vermont routes should be named. Any ideas? --TMF ^{T - C} 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Highways Revisited

Hello SPUI. I want to see where we agree and disagree on this subject, at least as far as textual terminology (as opposed to the article titles, which is another issue.) I believe you agree that State Highway x is a term in common use and can be bolded in the text, but you believe that Minnesota State Highway x is incorrect. I acknowledge that Trunk Highway x and TH x are correct and can also be bolded in the text. Is therefore our only point of disagreement whether the word "Minnesota" can or should appear before those terms? I am looking for consensus if we can achieve it. Kablammo 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) To keep the thread, reply here; I'll watch the page. Thanks. Kablammo 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my experience that putting the state name before the type is often done to disambiguate. But on Wikipedia we disambiguate with parentheses. As MNDOT seems to use State Highway X a lot more than Minnesota State Highway X, I think we should go with that. --SPUI (T - C) 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that disambiguation can be but is not obligated to be done with parentheses. But won't it be easier to search for a Minnesota road without them? In other words, won't it be more likely that someone will search for "Minnesota State Highway x" and go right to the site?

Also, there is no doubt that "Minnesota State Highway x" is an very common term here (and I'm sure you've Googled that), and is routinely used by MnDOT and other Minnesota state agencies in their publications as well as by the public, particularly in print (e.g., for directions). And given that common usage, why the need to delete it where it appears in the text? It seems you are trying to impose consistent usage where consistency is absent. Kablammo 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing says we can't make redirects. --SPUI (T - C) 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But redirects can go in either direction. Personally I think that both State Highway x (Minnesota) and Minnesota State Highway x are defensible. But on the talk page all contributors except you agreed to stick with the existing usage of Minnesota State Highway x, which is the form already in use on Wikipedia in many Minnesota highway articles. So that issue is settled. Given that, and given the fact that this usage also is common usage in Minnesota and in official publications by this state, it is not helpful to have people going into the articles themselves and changing wording from Minnesota State Highway x to some variant without the Minnesota attributive in the compound noun. It appears like an atttempt to accomplish indirectly what the participants in the discussion (other than you) agreed should not be done in the title. I am not challenging your good faith, but I am suggesting that the articles with text using the term Minnesota State Highway x be left alone as they are consistent with common and official usage. Kablammo 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Mom

(Pardon the alarming title)

I noticed your tagging of Your Mom to request it be merged into The Dozens. Please see my response on the talk page. I look forward to your reply. Dgies 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox road for Vermont

Could you set up the necessary templates to use {{Infobox road}} with Vermont routes? The existing {{Infobox VT Route}} leaves much to be desired and, upon further inspection, looks like a predecessor to Infobox road. BTW, the new list page for Vermont routes is List of Routes in Vermont. Thanks. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. One quick question though: why did you use Vermont highways for the link appearance versus something like Vermont Routes? --TMF ^{T - C} 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Future plate

Hey, would you be able to make a "FUTURE" plate for interstates? That would allow us to convert the 'future interstate xxx' images to svg and not have to make new svgs with "future" instead of interstate. i hope that made sense. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject of plates, I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor as well, and make ALT, SPUR, and BYPASS plates for county routes? -- NORTH ^talk 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking over at Indiana State Road 265. I'd just as soon replace the png image with the regular 265 svg image, or even (now looking at it more) merge IN 265 with I-265 (which needs to be cleaned up; i'll stick that on my to-do list). But this plate could be used elsewhere I suppose. Just a thought. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... that was speedy! Thanks. -- NORTH ^talk 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

M-6 and browse box to M-7

I didn't put M-7 in the browse since it is decommissioned and redirects to M-86 and may catch unsuspecting people off guard. You've been around the roads project longer than I have...obviously the M-86 article will have a browse to 85 and 88, but if you're going to put M-7 in the browse and have it jump to M-86, what's the precedent for handling that? Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha?

WP:STEAM Haukur 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:FLWfan

You know, when you find a new user on Wikipedia, you could give him or her a welcome message, and maybe point them in the way of some helpful links, instead of just complaining that they created a bad article. Being helpful might actually help your karma on here a bit. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)