Jump to content

User talk:Mapsax/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

[edit]
Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input request

[edit]

You have contributed to article The Really Big Show (formerly Rizzo on the Radio). This article is currently being considered for deletion. Please consider providing input at the article's discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Really_Big_Show.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chardon Shooting

[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your help on Chardon High School shooting. Do you have a citation for the location of the house? If you do, please add it. Also it does not have to be in parenthesis. I actually really should not be. Just put it in a sentence following the quote (but only if you have a citation, you can't put it there if it is from your personal knowledge, there must be a source). Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were good sources. I got a whole paragraph out of them. Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the entire article is in the past tense as it is expected to be there, well, forever. Newspapers, on the other hand are writing in and for the here and now so they can be written in the present tense. The problem is writing a current event as if it is in the past tense, but that it what has to be done (IMO). I will work on rewording it so that no verb-to-be has to be in the sentence, but for now "was" sounds better to me than "is". It is in agreement with the tone of the rest of the article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

[edit]
Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange neologism template

[edit]

Hi, Mapsax. Can you explain this edit that you made to Interchange (road)? I don't see use of a neologism in the article, let alone a promotional use thereof, but perhaps I'm missing something? It might be helpful in the future to post a brief note on the article talk page when you place that template, in case it's unclear to anyone what neologism you have in mind. Thanks, alanyst 02:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know for one that "volleyball" is a neologism, since its creator admits to it. "Trumpet" and "diamond", on the other hand, have been identified in engineering documents. I'm not sure of others, like "turbine", which is why I applied the template to the whole article. I thought about putting inline templates, but there were so many instances that I felt that it would make a cluttered appearance, in addition to the ones of which I'm uncertain. I also didn't see a "reason" parameter available for the header template, or otherwise I would have thought of one to add. Mapsax (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found your Neologism tag; added comment immediately after in markup. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Started a new talk section: Talk:Interchange (road)#Neologism template Mapsax (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Summer 2012 Newsletter

[edit]
Volume 5, Issue 3 • Summer 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article consistency

[edit]

Minor typographic changes to source titles are permitted. The goal is to be internally consistent within our article. The presence or absence of periods in an abbreviation rarely would affect the ability of a reader or editor to find the source for verification purposes. By insisting on parroting how the newspaper types out a minor detail, you're making our articles internally inconsistent, which makes them look sloppy.

The AP Stylebook specifies that AP-based publications are supposed to use the periods in their highway abbreviations for consistency; since AP wire stories are rarely reformatted when run in sister publications, that level of consistency and style guidance is needed, for their publications. We are not bound by the AP's rules for formatting, and since no meaning is changed by omitting the periods, it is a "minor typographic change". We had this discussion before related to article titles in sources on St. Joseph Valley Parkway, and before you left the periods out so that article would be internally consistent. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SC shields

[edit]

Thanks to the help of a talk page stalker, I saw your request to fix the SC shields. Do you have any specifications from SCDOT or just photographic evidence? I've been going through state by state and fixing shields when I see they need fixing. –Fredddie™ 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly photos and OR, though if you look at the example given in the Driver's Manual (the source for the state's secondary system on the respective article), it also has the larger digits, if we can consider that official. As for SCDOT itself, I've only found the five-year-old graphics from the press release announcing the changeover, which unfortunately only show 3 digits. I'd prefer real-world representation, but without RS I guess that we're stuck. Mapsax (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, on a 24" tall shield, numbers are 12". Looking at the shield template, the numbers were about 9.6" which doesn't sound right at all. I have resized the numbers and uploaded a new version. When I get time, I will start remaking the shields from the new template. –Fredddie™ 17:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the specs! (about 2/3 through the PDF). The version I uploaded is correct. –Fredddie™ 22:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
Could this be used as the source to replace the "citation needed" at List of numbered highways in South Carolina#Signage (1-/2-/3-digit using the same shield size)? If so, I'll let you do it since it appears that you know your way around graphics better than I do and could write a better citation. Mapsax (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013

[edit]
Volume 6, Issue 1 • Winter 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winter storm naming

[edit]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Salle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 280 (Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Blade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Mapsax. Thank you for updating the section on the Euclid Beach carousel. If I may, I would like to make a small suggestion. The cite you provided for the update needs to be watched. In my experience, The News-Herald tends to move its articles after a very short period of time. So the link you provided may go dead within the next week or so. If it does, you can go to The News-Herald website [www.news-herald.com] and search for the article there, get the new link, and replace the one in the WP article. I am not aware that the paper makes obvious use of permalinks. A possible alternative is to link to a very similar article sourced by The Plain Dealer at cleveland.com which entered my RSS feed on 04/26/2013. Be aware, though, that The Plain Dealer tends to move articles after a short time as well. Cheers! NorthCoastReader (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen The News-Herald articles expire since they started using the current URL format (http://www.news-herald.com/articles/yyyy/mm/dd/[section]/["nh" plus numbers or other alphanumeric].txt). Do you have an example? Mapsax (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hat-tip on the current URL format. I thought I might be able to provide a recent example but it turned out that I was mistakenly thinking of something else. That which I mentioned was a former feature of the N-H website and I guess I'm a bit behind the times... NorthCoastReader (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Spring 2013

[edit]
Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Summer 2013

[edit]
Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Fall 2013

[edit]
Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Winter 2013

[edit]
Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WINT

[edit]

I moved WELW to WINT (NE Ohio) to reflect the new calls, and to avoid conflict with the other WINT. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vjmlhds also ignored an ongoing page move request I opened w/o allowing that discussion to play out (in other words, w/o consensus). I suggest you both review WP:REQMOVES. Levdr1lp / talk 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to solicit help by posting a note on the talk page, and waited four days for a response – two days after the calls had actually changed, even. Seeing no response at all from anyone, I decided to be bold and did what I thought was most appropriate. I knew it would be complicated, so I did it in a way where everything would be easily traceable where a simple "undo" wouldn't work, so that it could be corrected appropriately. A little confusing, but not scold-worthy IMO. WP:AGF. Mapsax (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is scolding you. Clearly you are unfamiliar w/ how to move a page when there is an existing page at the desired target, so I recommend you review the appropriate process at WP:REQMOVES. I'm also surprised that someone editing since 2006 didn't think to ask for help at the Village Pump, Help Desk, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2005, actually, before my account. I've never used Village Pump. Most times when I post like I did in this case, I get a response, such as after I did the actual cut-and-paste. (Was that a matter of the article being on a watchlist but the respective talk page not?)
As for the scolding issue: That's how I interpreted the part of the summary "this is NOT how moves are performed". That with no accompanying note here at the time seemed overly terse to me. Mapsax (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should use the Village Pump or other resources before doing something you're unsure about. As for the wording of my edit summary, emphasis is NOT scolding. You made an error, one which easily could have been avoided had you sought out help first, thereby creating more work for others. Levdr1lp / talk 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did seek out help, by posting a note on the talk page, two days before the call change and four days before the edits which have caused all the contention. (You didn't respond to my question of why the latter caused a flurry of activity but the former caused nothing at all.) In the end, regardless of how convoluted our end was – and after all, it was a relatively easy fix – the people to whom it matters the most, the web-using public, would have only noticed that the article was up-to-date and accurate.
And per the wording issue, though this refers to talk pages and not summaries, it's still relevant and universal: WP:SHOUT "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." The word "not" unemphasized is clear enough to convey the negative by definition. Mapsax (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mapsax: Yes, "virtually never appropriate". In this case, and in my view, it was appropriate. Look at my talk page, look at my edit summaries, look at my contributions -- I rarely ever use capslock, but in this case it was necessary to get your attention. Hopefully you now know that performing a cut-and-paste move is precisely the wrong way to go about moving a page. Wikipedia is free, but it also requires attribution. You separated the article's content from its edit history, all of it dating back to 2005 (no, the small, tucked-away link you provided to the old edit history was not nearly sufficient for nine years of edits). I also wouldn't wait around for help by posting on an article talk page that barely receives 30 page views a month. Surely someone who has been editing with a registered account since 2006 should know there are plenty of centralized locations which offer guidance and assistance on navigating through this site's policies and procedures. Levdr1lp / talk 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"...but in this case it was necessary to get your attention." Incorrect assumption. The revert got my attention by itself. The "NOT" was like a hammer hit on top of that. Apparently you didn't intend it that way, but I interpreted it that way.
I do have a generally passing knowledge of centralized locations of discussion/debate/information/WikiProjects, e.g. as mentioned in MOS, but wasn't sure where to start in this particular instance. Again, experience told me to start at the talk page and work my way from there. Experience altered. Live and learn. Mapsax (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You want an apology? I apologize for using capslock. As for the talk page, you never "worked your way from there"; you went straight to the cut-and-paste move. If you're unsure about something in the future, consider reaching out first before potentially creating another problem. Levdr1lp / talk 16:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I never wanted an apology, I just wanted to make clear the reason for my reaction. And again, my comment on the talk page was my reaching-out. I misinterpreted the following silence as indifference in which case I became bold. I've been reviewing WP:BRD in the last few minutes, and essentially this is a case of "DBRD", again with the initial "D" ("discussion") being the talk page post which I thought would be noticed. You've already made it clear that you thought that it was a bad decision. Lesson learned. Mapsax (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it a little hard to believe that you were actually expecting someone to notice your comment. But I will AGF, and leave it at that. Levdr1lp / talk 16:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp:Your view means nothing...in fact it's a giant waste of time. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, please do not attack another editor on my talk page. Take it to that editor's page if you must attack at all. Mapsax (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize... shouldn't have let my issues with the other editor spill into to your talk page. For that, I'm sorry. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mapsax (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Argument between two other editors
And all this time I thought I was the only one...welcome to the club Mapsax. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I would take it as a point of pride to know such a "club" exists. Levdr1lp / talk 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: It's the "Belittled by Levdr1lp Club"...membership comes when one has been talked down to by a certain Wikipedia editor who thinks he's better than everyone else, and feels the need to talk to his fellow editors like 5-year olds. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I don't belittle, nor do I think I'm better than other editors. I do, however, strive to follow site policies and guidelines, and I expect orher editors to do the same. I do not apologize for pointing out that you deliberately ignored an ongoing page move request discussion and moved the page w/o consensus not once, but twice (note that another editor commented on that discussion, perfectly illustrating why it's important to wait until such a discussion closes). I do not apologize for pointing out -- with emphasis -- to Mapsax that cut-and-paste moves are precisely the wrong way to go about moving a page. Levdr1lp / talk 20:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: It's not YOUR PLACE to point out anything "with emphasis". When you do that, you come across as holier-than-thou, and as if you're superior to everybody else. Take that attitude out on the street with people, and you'll get a boot shoved somewhere very uncomfortable. Editors aren't just screen names...they're people, and you should take that into account. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I stand by what I've said, and how I've said it. Levdr1lp / talk 20:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: And when you stand on the tracks too long, eventually the train runs you over. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I'm not sure your analogy is relevant here. Levdr1lp / talk 21:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lp: You can stand by or stand on something all you want, but eventually you'll have to move (you wanna stand by power lines in a thunderstorm...just sayin') Vjmlhds (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I'm not sure that analogy is any more relevant than the previous one. Regardless, if you have anything else to say on this matter, please do so on my talk page. I think we've taken up more than enough space here. Levdr1lp / talk 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Spring 2014

[edit]
Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twin cities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffered. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Summer 2014

[edit]
Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
  • None submitted
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014

[edit]
Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Winter 2015

[edit]
Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conan (talk show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Spring 2015

[edit]
Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Summer 2015

[edit]
Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mull Covered Bridge

[edit]

Please read WP:CITEVAR again. One of just two "to be avoided" things is Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently. You may also observe that the result of using your template is a situation radically different from the cite.php-compliant MLA style previously used by the article. Finally, the fact that you find these templates simple is irrelevant: they require the user to memorise or look up the necessary parameters, rather than simply writing the citation as would be done in any non-wiki document. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: September 2015

[edit]

The Center Line
Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter

Happy 10th Anniversary!
—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: November 2015

[edit]
—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 December

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 219 in Maryland

[edit]

I encourage you to add the reference you added a tag about, per WP:BOLD. The progressive thing to do is to add updated references when they become available, and I know you can do that, so you should.  VC  00:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viridiscalculus: As I noted in the edit summary, I didn't know whether to add the link as another reference or to replace the one leading to the Wayback Machine backup. I'm not that familiar with the history of the reroute, I just happened to find the new triply-maintained webpage through a web search, so I figured that I'd defer to those who have worked on the article more than I have so I didn't remove anything that didn't need to go. I did specifically use the "copyedit" template rather than the "update" one so that the EL could be right there for the benefit of WP readers until things were decided. If nothing changes in the next few days, I'll exercise my BOLDness. Mapsax (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016

[edit]

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

Indiana 931

[edit]

IN 931 replaced US 31 through that section of road and the RPB was never updated to the new route of US 31. So using US 31 and doing a little math, which is not OR, one could easily find mileage. I was even nice to showed the math [1]. It is just a renumbered roadway. Also the St. Joseph county didn't accept the road South Bend did. Travisarch (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Bend is in St. Joseph County. Nothing says that the St. Joseph County Highway Department was involved. Look at 933. All of that is in St. Joseph County, including the cities. There is no proof that 931 doesn't exist within the city of South Bend. Mapsax (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know South Bend is in St. Joseph county but news reports list Indiana 931 exist in St. Joseph and Lakeville never listing South Bend. PS I have went pass the end signs at the South Bend city limit. Travisarch (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to added link to traffic counts from INDOT [2] that did 931 in 2015 leaving the ones inside south bend as the year before. Also Kern is listed as a local traffic counter and not a state owned one. Travisarch (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisarch: OK, we're getting somewhere since the traffic count map is the first place where I've seen an official INDOT document referring to the northern 931. However the northernmost counter identifying it as such (ID 710433) is immediately north of Kern Road and appears to be within South Bend city limits. As for the end signs, remember that those are not always exactly at the ends of routes. More importantly for this discussion, there are no references on the 931 page which explain to readers why South Bend might or might not be the northern end. Just so you know that I'm trying to be fair I've put a note at the U.S. Roads project talk page. Mapsax (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the one north of Kern is 2014 when it was still US 31 the rest of the northern section of SR 931 was done in 2015, the city has not update traffic counts. State roads ending at city limits SR 4 middle section and SR 22 on the west of Kokomo. A little bit more of what I said above why would reports spell out Lakeville but not South Bend, which is a lot bigger, both are located in St. Joseph County. They could just say St. Joseph County (w/o Lakeville) because South Bend took control of the roadway and the St. Joseph County highway department and Lakeville didn't take over the roadway. Travisarch (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisarch: The one north of Kern is labelled "SR 931" and 2014 is when the freeway opened so it could go either way. We do have a clue on the detail page, a note from May 20, 2015, that says "Deactivated due to the realignment of US 31. Barricaded at this location." but I don't think that this is enough proof by itself. Again, I'd like to see what others say. Mapsax (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisarch: So I got an e-mail from INDOT (it was primarily regarding something involving IN 933, see that talk page) which says that 931 ends at the South Bend city limits. I'll remove the "disputed" template but, strange as it may seem, INDOT's e-mail cannot be used as a reliable source so I'm going to tag the South Bend city limit statements. Mapsax (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Desert Trip) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Desert Trip, Mapsax!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a tag on the talk page. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

@Blythwood: That's just fine. I was surprised that so close to a gig of that stature there was no article on it. I put up just the bare minimum just to have one, then others could flesh it out. Thanks for the review! Mapsax (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Mapsax. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toll Roads and Free Roads listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toll Roads and Free Roads. Since you had some involvement with the Toll Roads and Free Roads redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christopher Elliott (actor) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Elliott (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Elliott (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boneymau (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Spring 2017

[edit]
—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Mapsax. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mapsax/Archive_2&oldid=1142532258"