User talk:NE2/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fairfax Connector

Please read WP:USSH. State Route 267 (Virginia) is the format that should be linked to. --NE2 07:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. That specifies the format for redirects. It doesn't say that you have to link it that way. And changing from a link to the actual article to a redirect seems a nonsensical move. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is absolutely no difference between [[Virginia State Route 267|State Route 267]] and [[State Route 267 (Virginia)|State Route 267]]. As long as the link displays as the common name, everything's kosher. It's up to the individual editor how much they wish to rely on the pipe trick. -- NORTH talk 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) My apologies, see User talk:SchuminWeb instead. -- NORTH talk 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: comment for afh7689

I recalled seeing it in the newspaper, but couldn't find a source. It WAS, however listed on the article for SR548 as having already been changed in "mid-2005". I made a comment. I think that the "US 92 in Lakeland" and my comment could therefore be deleted.

Alabama State Routes

Saw your replacement of the markup language with the infobox template in Alabama State Route 22. Frankly, I prefer to work with straight markup because it's much more flexible. I can smush things around, change colors, do anything I want without the limitations of the template. But it's no big deal.

I like to get a lot of stuff into an infobox, though I realize it's a matter of taste. So I listed all the important intersections. SR 22 is a long road, after all. The locations are given in the text.

Also, I have to admit that I think it's a little silly that the first words of the article have to be "State Route 22" instead of "Alabama State Route 22". But I did read that unbelievable Arbcom case, so there's no way I'm going to mess with WP:USSH. Really, though, would using the state name as the first word of the first sentence be so awful? Finally, I got rid of the cite tag with a reference to Casey Abell 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An AWB request

Hey. Thanks for all of your help fixing article links to comply with WP:USSH. I have a question/request: once you get all of the links fixed, could you do some tasks using AWB regarding articles relating to WP:NYSR? This mainly involves changing shields (from "NY-x.png" to "NY-x.svg") and fixing section headers ("Towns along the route" to "Communities along the route", for example). There's no hurry on this, but if you feel up to the task, let me know. Regards, TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Along with "New York State Highway X", there's a few "New York Route X", "Route X (New York)", and "State Route X (New York)" that are still out there so yep, there's a lot of NY links that need fixing. Also, all of the NY SVGs have been created, so the transition should be seamless. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a complete list of the headers that need fixing, off the top of my head:

  • Towns along the route → Communities along the route
  • Trivia → Miscellanea
  • External link → External links (some of the links in this section also need to be bulleted)


  • Capitalization fixes (Route Description → Route description, for example)

That's all I can think of right now, but that'll provide a good starting point. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problems letting those links remain as-is, personally. I see your point and I think it's a good one. I just wasn't sure of how lenient WP:USSH is about article linking. But if those links remain the same, I don't have a problem with it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

edit to freeway

The edit was to fix the text. Leaving it as State Route 15 is ambiguous to the reader. Clearly stating that it is Ohio State Route 15 is correct and it reads well. There is no reason to write the article using ambiguous terms. If the article was about roads in Ohio, then the other wording would probably be correct. Vegaswikian 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You should always explain what you are talking about as soon as possible, and not after you confuse someone. There is also an assumption in your theory that any road mentioned before Delaware, Ohio is also in Ohio. While true in this case, may not be true in all cases. How about leaving the text as Ohio State Route 15 which I think you are saying is not incorrect and you can add the redirected link if you want. My issue is with how the text reads and yours seems to be over how it is linked. Vegaswikian 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, do you have any citations for the fact that freeways in Ohio are different from freeways elsewhere? If not, I might just remove that entire section as original research. Interesting question. I have no idea. I do know that just about everyone wants to rewrite that article. If you want to delete that area, go right ahead. If it really is OR, then it should be removed. Vegaswikian 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding linking

Hey again. I've noticed you've been going through the New Jersey articles and changing links to the redirected title. I thought I'd inform you had been doing the exact opposite (for example [1] three hours before you hit U.S. Route 46), and for the life of me I don't know which of you is correct. Thus I've posted a question at the bottom of WT:USSH, and I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion there. -- NORTH talk 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The same is true with the Florida State Road articles. NE2, have you actually read what you've been citing, WP:USSH? 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I apologize for that article change. I just wanted to reflect change of the new article that was recently created. Spongefan, 17:55 October 17 2006 (UTC)

1928 vs. 1936

Smithfield Foods website is the one claiming Smithfield Packing formed in 1936. They bought older Gwaltney of Smithfield in 1981. I think the two fact sources for when Luter Sr. and Jr. switched from boats to bridge are in conflict. Until we can resolve it, if ever, maybe best move for JRB article will be to eliminate specifyng a date Luter started using JRB. Vaoverland 01:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Fairfax County, Virginia

Please do not use rollback when not reverting vandalism. You should always make an effort to discuss the issue with the "other side", either on its talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you. --NE2 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

If you'll notice, it was part of a revert war, and my reason for reverting it was identical to that of the previous revert. I've been following this guy around as he's been hyping up Maryland in a bunch of articles (in a number of odd or POV ways) and removing negative references to the state. Check his contributions. Jkatzen 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New VA roads format

Why are you changing the VA state roads format to "State Highway XX (Virginia)? Is there a new standard format? If not, how is this [2] "fixing a link?" —  AjaxSmack  23:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Virginia State Route 16

The article Virginia State Route 16 you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg, see Talk:Virginia State Route 16 for reason why the nomination failed. If or when this points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said artile. If you oppose this decission, you may ask for a review. Metros232 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested shield

Hey. Here's a shield for WV 59, as requested: WV-59.svg. Regards, TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

County routes

Is there consensus now to create articles on West Virginia county routes? If so, I can start shurning out some, at least in some parts of the state with which I am familiar. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks. I knew you were more in touch with the pulse of the roadies on Wikipedia than I am, so I figured you'd be the one to ask. Also, that WV template that you trimmed down and removed from WV 2 might be TfD-able. A year or so ago, it survived one such discussion (I actually voted keep, but now think maybe not) that I now suspect was full of sockpuppetry and other shady dealings. If you put it up, let me know. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfunded WVSH projects

Trying to decide what to do with [3]. It's the doc "Prioritization of Unfunded State Highway Projects", but unsure if a summary based on the XLS with wikilinks to said pages would work, or if including the data into the said pages would be better. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no Interstate 66 for West Virginia. The alignment was to run along the Coalfields Expressway, but that was loosely defined from a generalised map. The Coalfields Expressway is a corridor-standard four-lane divided highway with interchanges and a few intersections that has the US 121 designation. Kentucky plans on building its link, but with no other states even committed or willing, it's going to end literally at the state line. I can give you more details on this, but for a general short description, West Virginia has no intention of building its share. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting, I hadn't even seen that. My guess is that it would just be a connection from I-66 in Kentucky at the state line to the King Coal Highway (US 52) - which is being constructed to corridor standards. From the Executive Director Mike Mitchem, there are not enough funds to complete it as a full interstate, so it won't be signed as I-73/74, although the signs proclaim it as the "I-73/74 HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR". There are probably provisions to remove the at-grades in the future, but that won't be for a LONG time.
Which got me thinking: I-66 in Kentucky is dead. If its not connecting to any interstate to the east, and not to the west, one can only hope I-66 in Kentucky would be dead too. As it stands, its duplicating essentially US 119, parts of which are still under construction for four-lane widening at over $1 billion dollars! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, US 119 is a nice 65 MPH road (signed as 55 MPH!) that could stand to lose some of its at-grades. Some of the "through-town" routings, like at Belfry, could stand to be bypassed and the original route restored as a two-lane facility. KY 80 west of Pikeville is an excellent four-lane road, but could stand to see a concrete jersey barrier instead of the "mountable" cheapies they throw in - and some at-grades removed.
But in a state where they whine that this new interstate, which has a projected cost of over $1 billion easy, will create "economic development." My ass. Perhaps they should fill the sad industrial parks (many of which have an occupancy rate <10%! - H/L article) and let economics do the work. e.g. This will force people to move. I don't see the state recouping $1 billion in "economic development." It's just a waste, where the money could be used to upgrade US 119 and KY 80 easier and cheaper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Took care of the needless removal. I also started a stub page that I'll work on later tonight. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects and AWB

Consider it done Because it is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:History of West Virginia question

I have answered your question regarding the WV-VA border at the above talk page. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


WikiProject West Virginia State Routes. Coming soon! Feel free to edit or do whatever. I plan on working on it at work tommorrow. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what, never mind. It's nice I just found out about the new WP WVR group... :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia Routes seems right up your alley (or primary two lane highway, as the case may be). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:West Virginia highways

The image your provided is a C.R., not a secondary route. WV Highways have 4 levels. Normal State Highways with the Square Shield. The C.R.'s which have a round sheild. The C.R. stands for county route, but is part of the state system. The secondary routes are the fractional routes such as 220/3 and have a round sheild on a horizontal green sheild. Also the roads from the orphan roads program that use a sheild shaped like a house on a green sheild. There are 4 distict levels of WV state maintained roads.

Also city streets are not part of the state system. This template may work for other states but has nothing to do with WV's system. --71Demon 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See post on my talk page or his. I corrected him, as he has misunderstood what the whole purpose of the page is about. Again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Also [Template talk:West Virginia highways]. Sorry for the talk page flooding :-P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Roswell, Georgia

Please see Wikipedia:Profanity. Thank you. --NE2 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It says In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. I guess you're right, then. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Seicer

It was decided on other state route pages that it would be best to remove counties. It was becoming overly excessive and consuming up 3 or 4 lines of categories. They are also redundant as one can click on the county under Communities the route traverses through and come up with the same solution. It's done primarily for clarity. You can bring it up at WP:WVR if you want other opinions on this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but would there be a way to pipe it in that you won't have a slew of counties taking up that many rows? Like, instead of "Cabell County, West Virginia" listed, it would be "Cabell County"? I don't know if you can do this with counties. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything on it. I see your point; I'll revert it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that you've been having problems with him as well... do you have any suggestions? I've blocked twice, and the user just ignores whatever goes on their talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so... we have {{lang5}}, and even if you can't block for that, there are blocks for image stealing Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Warnings. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost ramp

I put the reliable source debate up to poll and discussion at Ghost ramp. It's nothing against you; I am just wanting to achieve a consensus here. Your input is greatly welcomed. Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read my talk page

There is a post from the editor of the website on my talk page (heading 31). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

MWRA redirects

Somebody edited all my articles that used Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to MWRA which is a redirect. I was editing them back. I was trying to clear all the links that went to the redirect page. Is this not correct? -- LymanSchool 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well methinks that was to prevent edit-wars. I note that you are changing many (hopefully all) Massachusetts Routes from the Massachusetts Route 9 format to the Route 9 (Massachusetts) format and that you have set up a temporary redirect to help. Your watch on the Quabbin Reservoir showed we crossed paths. I think you still have one of the older formats still left in that article. -- LymanSchool 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

MA 295 Edit

Your recent edit to the MA Rt 295 page claims to be implementing the WP:USSH policy for links, but it actually did the reverse, changing two Rt. 41 links from the policy format back to the old format. I'm assuming this wasn't what you intended. --Mr Wednesday 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think the main point (considering this was all on the left-hand side of a pipe anyway) is that it's pointless to go through fixing up all the links. While it's not necessary to undo a redirected link, I don't think it's correct to read the policy to advocate changing non-redirected to redirected. Anyway, it's obvious that the article is fine in its current state so the debate is moot. --Mr Wednesday 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, upon re-reading, the section you link does not apply. It refers to "pipe-tricked" links, which were not what was present in the MA-295 article. The policy says "do not fix pipe-tricked links", meaning e.g. [[Route 41 (Massachusetts)|]]. --Mr Wednesday 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts highways

Hello! You've gone thru today and changed a number of links in the articles on Mass. highways from "Mass Route X" to "Route X (Mass)" and noted that this was in keeping with USSH. The article title on the USSH main page is designated as the original ("Mass Route X") and now you've created a series of redirects. Is this in preparation for a renaming of the articles? Sahasrahla 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a rather bizarre policy, given the number of times people are told not to cause redirects. Sahasrahla 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Not causing redirects would be the unwritten policy when I first started contributing to Wikipedia, and an unwritten policy that newer editors saw reinforced on their talk pages. Often. Where are people told to become overly defensive when asked a simple question? Sahasrahla 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering, why you edited the link to Massachusetts Route 128 to "Route 128 (Massachusetts)" on the List of highways named Circumferential Highway when "Route 128 (MA)" is a redirect to "MA Route 128"? Basically, why did you change a direct link to a redirect? JayDuck 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit, given that there's nothing in WP:USSH that warrants displaying the parentheses in a link. Feel free to share your thoughts at WT:USSH. -- NORTH talk 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: NJ17

I'm used to knowing references as inline sourcing, and all those as external links-thats why i changed it.Mitchazenia(7500+edits) 03:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright

You may try {{Image no source last warning}} if he continues to revert. Good luck on this persistent violator Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Editting Rhode Island Route 51

I changed the links from "Route xx (RI)" to "Rhode Island Route xx" as the first links redirects to the second link (which is the name of the webpage. KB1KOI 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert that edit? This is exactly what is being discussed at WT:USSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That is what is being discussed. Here, neither P1 nor P2 is displayed, and only the coding is being changed. That by definition is being discussed at WT:USSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, that quote refers to links such as [[State Road 50 (Florida)|State Road 50]] that are at P2. And yes, this is applicable to the discussion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking closely, the main part of it that I am concerned about is the first change at the top of the diff: [4]. It should probably be changed to P1 or P2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay... my bad, I didn't look at the diff closely. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


AAMOF, I am that person, however to avoid further confusion I tagged this as PD-user. I understand the issues with Ozzie-billete-sm.jpg, it didn't occur to me that the logo would be a problem. That brings up the next question, which is that many images of US government entities are PD, and there's tags for such use, but how about the Mexican government entities? There's a couple of pix I simply tagged as GFDL as I didn't see any category for that. Tubezone 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the logo on Ozzie-billete-sm.jpg is a free giveaway meant for public distribution, I have the same logo on my computer and cell phone. I don't know how the licensing works for that kind of thing. I think the easiest thing to do with Mexican images is just to get a statement from the entity in question as to whether it's considered PD or not. Tubezone 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Brghtnpk.jpg Brpkmap.jpg What on earth is the matter with these? The author gave his permission, his site is linked from the article. What do I need to do, get a notarized statement of permission? Tubezone 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to make it clear that said permission applies to the license you put. Simple permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough. --NE2 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, how? If you are going to tag images for deletion, there should explanation of how to resolve the copyright issues for images, not just a generic notice that there's a problem. What I put on the image was The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that attribution tag in photo is not removed. This does not restrict its use to Wikipedia. How clearer can it be? Tubezone 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You first marked it as GFDL, then changed it to "any purpose". Why?

When I uploaded the image, the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions tag was not offered on the upload page as an option. GFDL seemed to be the proper category.
There are a few other points and questions I want to bring up here.
1. Except in cases of obvious vandalism, it's at least polite to put a warning on the author's talk page when you tag his contributions for deletion.
2. Putting comments on my talk page that I might be a liar is a personal attack that is prohibited by policy. See WP:NPA.
3. Looking at your contributions for today, my images.. (some of which have nothing to do with roads or railroads at all, and you had no reason to presume to have copyright problems) are the only images you bothered with at all. Any reason for that?
4. You are not an admin, and do not have user authority to rule on copyright issues. So I am going to restore the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat tag on the images Bill Gustason gave permission to upload. If you do not agree you can take it to IfD and we'll let the admins decide.
5. The other images are from Mexican tourism authorities. I don't think I'll have a problem either getting permission or a legal ruling that as Mexican government issue, they're available for free use. Tubezone 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)