Misplaced Pages

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exit lists

It's probably less confusing than having to jump around to follow the Santa Ana Freeway - and that's the article that will have all the details, and so that's the one that you'll be more likely to want a list of exits while reading. --NE2 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to have the link point right to the section of the exit list that pertains? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes; if you put <div id=US-101/> in the exit list, it creates an anchor "US-101". --NE2 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just created an example in SR 46. --NE2 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement system

I've been mentioning the systems in the lead without any objections: see US 50, SR 20, and SR 46. --NE2 20:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but that currently goes against WP:CASH. I'm not opposed to a change in the standards, but you and I do not make a WikiProject or a consensus. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought it up on USRD... and it's not just a California thing; I've seen it in Utah. --NE2 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 19

Please do not make those edits to that page again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It was not vandalism. In fact, I was reverting the edits of a user who was blindly following Misplaced Pages guidelines (suggestions, not rules) with no regard for encyclopedic content. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The guideline exists because over ten junctions makes the infobox too big. If it is easier, you may do less than 10, but absolutely no more than ten junctions may be listed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And this would be why, exactly? Because a group of users came up with an "absolute" limit, in contravention to WP:POLICY. (In fact, I wouldn't even call it a guideline, or anything of the sort. All I have is the opinion of two Wikipedians that 10 is an absolute limit... and I've scoured the policies and guidelines to try to find something even remotely official to justify the strong defense the two of you have mounted on this article.) Look, whatever the result by consensus is on U.S. Route 19, I'll live with that. I would strongly suggest, though, that you not use your position as an admin to try to intimidate users into crafting articles YOUR way. Your note on my talk page hinted that I'd violated WP:POLICY, and I don't appreciate such a strongly worded (yet darkly vague) warning. That's not a good path to go down for you as an admin, my dear sir/madam. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not using my clout as an administrator; I never even mentioned it. I'm telling you as a fellow editor to not make those edits again. You're going against the long-established consensus of the 10 junction limit. Trust us; we've been down the "list every darn junction" road before. It's ugly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Please note, though, that I did not add anything to the article that wasn't already there when I started. (To wit, I merely returned info to the infobox; the edit prior, I actually removed verbiage. Net change to the article from my edits was negative; even discounting the first edit, it's still 0.) So I still say your strongly-worded warning is... well, I hope I can be forgiven in finding it more than a bit strange, given that I certainly was not "listing every darn junction". But don't take my word for it... look at the edit history. ;-) Anyway, I think we're good now. Let's continue this discussion at U.S. Route 19, where I already noted I'm going to take a day or so off from this article. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I-10 in California Junctions

Thanks for the guidance. Looks like this has come up before. New contributor's error. Wwardw (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Highways Barnstar!

Stalking

Now you know why I'm following you? If you haven't figured it out, obviously you've been watching me like a hawk. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have broken WP:SOCK and other Misplaced Pages policies before, it is within my rights to do so to make sure that you do not break further policies. I have only dealt with you on the roads level - note that I don't go to other non-road articles you edit and harass you there. However, you are going around and interfering with my administrative and other actions as a user. That is not allowed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So why is it so important to you to keep the sockpuppet categories on my userpage? After all, you're the only one doing so; no one else has done it while you were on your wikibreak. And how is it that I broke the WP:SOCK rules if this is my only account that I'm using? Why do you think I'm trying to fill a usurpation request? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't use sockpuppets and have never been accused of such. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is essential to the Misplaced Pages record - just the same as your block log. That's the rules. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at least you explained. And thanks for the welcoming, but my account's already two months old. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SSP

I don't know why you are so concerned about that SSP case that has concluded, but could you please list all the actions done by my cousin Artisol2345 and list his sockpuppet usernames? (If that's okay with you) Hopefully, this could give me further explanations. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Artisol2345 did many things that were annoying by breaking USRD standards - stuff that we have to go back and clean up, which really irritates us. (Reason that 75 IP is so annoying is that we have to go back and clean up after him - I wasted 4-5 hours this weekend cleaning up after him and the 66 IP). Also, Artisol2345 used sockpuppets in an AFD, and this was blatantly obvious. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I'm sorry to hear. Should I stop editing USRD, too? I think the reason why I've been unintentionally breaking the standards as well was because I'm not that good on reading comprehension. Therefore, when I read your standards, either I read it too quickly, or I did not understand them properly. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The main concern that I have is that when someone tells you what you are doing wrong, you are not correctable. You don't ask what or how you can change to make things better; you instantly "strike back" and refuse correction. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of hard being correctible; I try to hold back my reverts, but for some reason I just want to fight with NE2 in edit wars. But I was told to move on, so I think I should avoid some article that NE2 edits. It seems that NE2 is protective of "his articles", and I wonder if he also understood me when I advised him to read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a different issue - others of us have had similar issues with NE2. But when I tell you that you've been doing something wrong, you instantly fight back. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about my problem. Even though I don't get along with NE2 like some others, I hope you can understand that like most editors, I don't want to see an established contributor like him get banned, however. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 51

You marked AZ 51 for needing attention with regards to its exit list without explanation except it needs to conform to WP:ELG. Well, I created that exit list roughly six months ago and I am not seeing the issue with it. Could you provide any details to what you see as a problem? Thanks. --Holderca1 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Main issue is there is no indication of what city it is in. If you're omitting the column you need to say what city it is in somewhere in that section. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ELG doesn't state that anywhere I could find. The first sentence of the article clearly states that it is in Phoenix, and the lead mentions it no less than 3 times, but I have included it nonetheless. --Holderca1 02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manifesto

I completely agree with everything in the Manifesto.

Unfortunately, due to unforeseen time constraints, as well as frustrations with Misplaced Pages (not just in the roads project, but in others), I have decided to draw back from some WikiProjects, including USRD. I really want to spend time on getting PA roads up to standard, and being involved in USRD has certainly distracted me from that. And I just don't want to get involved in all the drama. Of course, I'm still going to watch the page and see the discussions as some discussions could involve PA.

Additionally, I changed the name of WP:PASH because I felt that the project name should be what the project is about. And in reality, the project is about roads in Pennsylvania. It's more than just highways, but local roads, scenic byways, beltways (such as the series around Pittsburgh), state routes, quadrant routes, and some regular streets. I had been arguing in the past that USST should control city streets and USRD should not. However, the correct argument is that those streets should fall under state subprojects. USST should exist, but it should be a "common room" for the City project and Road project.

As well, I think that while upmerging all of the project templates under USRD was a good idea at the time - if the manifesto is to go ahead, then they should be devolved back to the way they were; the only templates that USRD should be used on are states without a project and inter-state roads.

Keep the faith! --Son (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The main concern with the PASH moves was that no other PASH editors were consulted before the sudden moves - you may wish to start a discussion to make sure that this was okay. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better idea...

Unless everyone votes on moving Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) to your title, do not move it and say that I should read WP:USSH. Right now, I find WP:USSH very incomprehensible to me, so therefore, the only way I could understand you is if you actually tell me a clear reason why your move was better. I'm starting to think that you are getting more and more biased... ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is moot. And no, I'm not the only one reverting your edits; NE2 is. That's a hint that you must be doing something wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't always mean you are always right. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but most of the time you're wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know if I was wrong? I'm not wrong most of the time. If you were to prove me wrong, you would show me some of my diffs that did not help. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

- you should not have done this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was to show the user the title of the actual article when they hover over the link. I don't even know why the Misplaced Pages policy interprets this as an unhelpful thing. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to change the link. There is no problem with showing CR J4 (CA) or whatever it was with the hover function. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it might at least save them a few seconds from actually having to click on the article if they wish to find out the target article from the link. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages says don't do it. So don't. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They said it was discouraged; that doesn't mean it's not allowed. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop Wikilawyering and just don't do it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, only because you at least said the "P" word. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I reverted your move of I-210/SR 210, since the California needs to apply to both I-210 and SR 210. WP:USSH doesn't really apply to special cases. --NE2 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to, me or Rschen7754? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I've stopped providing explanations is because you either a) say I'm wrong or b) misunderstand them. Therefore, I don't see the point in doing so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I was talking to NE2. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to Rschen7754. One or both of you may be confusing the two recent reverted changes: the US 199 junction list and the name of the I-210/SR 210 article. --NE2 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the changes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So I suppose that you are assuming that I'm the one who's being confused by those two changes. >_< ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, how is it that whenever I post something on their talk page, this wacked-out hulabaloo occurs. *THAT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION.* ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So NE2, you're saying that a picture of two kittens romancing can actually help resolve this dispute? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No - he's implying that this is a catfight. But it's not, as I'm clearly in the right and you're in the wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, what was I wrong about again? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere, and I've got stuff to do. If you won't take my advice, figure it out yourself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't take advice from people who accuse me as a sockpuppet. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ted Williams

The IP's edit in was correct; SR 56 is the Ted Williams Freeway and the continuation beyond I-15 is the Ted Williams Parkway. I'm removing the name entirely though, since it seems to be a rarely-used ceremonial name. --NE2 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

US 395 (CA)

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject California State Highways#Should we use the exact definition of freeway that Caltrans uses? --NE2 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:75.47.140.0

I don't think you're supposed to prevent people from removing warnings: "Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.", Misplaced Pages:WikiProject user warnings/FAQ#How about creating a user warning template... --NE2 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the problem with that is when it's applied to the extreme; then experienced IP vandals would just remove the vandalism templates and disrupt the system. Hence I've semiprotected the template into place - it just wasn't a guaranteed right by policy because there are legitimate reasons why a user might want to blank their talk page - leaving Misplaced Pages for example. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IH

According to the standards, the section is optional. --NE2 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754/Problems with Misplaced Pages

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --NE2 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)