User talk:NE2/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Your RfC

Hi NE2, Sorry to see what you've been going through. I praise your effort at trying to fix the incorrect terms on the road articles to those which are correct! Just thought I'd drop a word of encouragement to you. Most of the bureaucracy now on the roads articles is in place to preserve what is already there -- mistakes and all (the article name of any road reflects this). They think that just because it's there, and most people use the incorrect term (mainly because the term is what's used on the page) makes it the one to use. They then try to find sources to back this up. I'm glad people like you are still actively working in roads -- they've already driven SPUI off, as well as me. I hope this round will result in a better conclusion!

Keep up the good work. atanamir 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Woodhaven_Boulevard

I copied your cites onto the article's ref list. We're working to rescue this and clean it up. Please feel free to jump in.Bearian 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on CO/SR maps

I had email CDOT about that pdf you mentioned:

Hello,

CDOT's website maps are in the public domain, so there is no problem using them for public distribution, such as Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Gary Aucott GIS Data & Support Specialist Colorado Department of Transportation atanamir 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know if that's enough; can you forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --NE2 05:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Conlin-Whitehead Highway

Seems like I couldn't find a relaible source regarding to Interstate 484. All the Interstate 169 articles you delete how you found out those sources are not relaible?Did you go on Google and check it? What about Interstate 491? If no relaible source its my responsibitily to delete it. Thank you---Freewayguy--Comm 90 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Webster Avenue

Why is this in USRD and USST? It's only 5 miles long...—Scott5114↗ 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I think we need to refine the USRD scope even more, but I'm not sure how we would word it. I think we're both aware of the difference between streets and roads, and probably agree with which articles should go in which projects, but it's kind of hard to lay out in words. Webster Ave isn't an article I see fitting well within USRD, though by virtue of carrying US 1 does technically fit in the scope. —Scott5114↗ 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Prairie Ave FAC

I have responded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you might support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I-169s

Isnt this found on google book too, then why you delete all the series. On Tennessee you switch it to different page, and Mississippi ones the Greenville Connector. How you tell whether sources was verifies or not? --Freewayguy--Comm 90 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The bus

Are the buses still running? Simply south (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NY Times Article

I've requested "New Bridge Completes L.I.-to-Jersey Bypass" for you. I'll let you know when I receive it. Superm401 - Talk 05:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

World Toilet Day

Hello again, NE2 - I just thought I'd "plop" by and wish you a very happy World Toilet Day. Love, Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... I guess I'll clean my toilet. It could use it. --NE2 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Boulevard" misspelling

I checked the article Interstate 405 (California), and yes, I guess the word was misspelled. Just to let you know, they probably do know how to spell it. My best guess is that when somebody was cleaning up the exit list, they made a typo when typing the word "Boulevard" and without noticing, they've been doing copy and paste. Anyways, that's what I think. Don't worry, everyone makes typos, including you and me!

Also, I've been trying to follow the format of exit lists, but how do you actually create one? I'm already having a hard time completing one in the Interstate 70 in Indiana article. Since I noticed you're the expert at these things, do you know of any reliable source to find proper destinations and all that other stuff? 68.4.223.161 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.^Mitch32^contribs 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was able to complete the table, thanks to your source. Anyways, if you could check the completed exit list on the Interstate 70 in Indiana article, could you provide me a feedback and see if the list meets the standards of WP:ELG? I asked because I'm still not sure how to write info in the "Notes" column. 68.4.223.161 (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you think the exit list does meet the standards. Well, what about the mileage? That's one thing missing from the table. It's always those dreaded miles we can't find, and there are a lot of missing sources. How do you normally find the sources for mileage? 68.4.223.161 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unused highway lists

I think the lists were split prematurely. I feel we should move all the information into the appropriate routes' articles, and delete the other pages. Unfortunately, nobody on that talk page supported that (or even acknowledged that as a possibility...twice) and went about splitting anyway. However, I do not have time to do the work of moving the information to the appropriate articles. That makes more sense to me than where we stand right now, which is instead of one article that barely survived AfDs, we now have what, 20? 30? --MPD ^{T / C} 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CA roads

The easiest way, I think, would be to go through Category:Freeways in California and pull out those that aren't appropriate. If there's an easy way to tell from the article content, just let me know & I'll take care of it for you. SkierRMH (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it after work (not to this afternoon, sorry), shouldn't be a problem that way. If there's ?'s, I'll drop you a line. SkierRMH (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All done. SkierRMH (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System should show as a red link as I deleted it already (that was the easy part!) SkierRMH (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the CASH articles were reverted to the redlinked cat version? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 101 (California)

Unfortunately, an IP removed the milepost equations, and tehre is no easy way to revert. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We could go to statewide mileage... --NE2 02:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not really correct... unless we had both postmile and unofficial mileage. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to explain on WT:ELG (or anywhere else) how that's somehow not "correct". Please do so or desist. --NE2 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, um... I removed the milepost equations because I don't see any other exit lists (other than on California State Route 120). If NE2 wants it on the lists so bad, why doesn't he just discuss with people and make equations on every exit list in California? 68.4.223.161 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, because we have lives off Wikipedia and haven't gotten around to it yet. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AWB crit fail!

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you'd intended to do! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This also happened here, at the Bolinas-Stinson Union School District article. It's hard to understand how the low-priority task (IMHO) of removing the word "Calfiornia" from "Calfiornia State Route" could result in the conversion of perfectly good references to some kind of Klingon code. I'm sure that this is well intended, but I think that you need to go back and fix these problems. Also, why change <references/> to {{Reflist}} when there are only two. Some of us don't find the reduced font size easy to read, and there was no MoS preference for one or the other when I last looked. I think that this choice should be left as the first editor to add references decided, unless there is a good reason to make the change.--Hjal (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful - [1]. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to California Zephyr and Feather River Route

I'm not sure changing California State Route 70 to State Route 70 is appropriate. As the Feather River Route traverses 3 states (California, Nevada and Utah) there could be some confusion as to which route 70 is being referred to. The California Zephyr is similar, traversing California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois.

What was your intention with these edits? Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the two sentences in question, it's not clear from the context the article is talking about California. However, the reader can figure it out by clicking on any of the wikilinks in those sentences. For the record,WP:USSH has an example of how to link that states: "The Cheney Highway, part of Florida State Road 50, crosses the St. Johns River swamp." So the articles in question were in compliance with USSH, despite the reason given for the change.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just checking :)

Heya NE2, i havnt really had much of a chance to tlk to you but i just id say hi anyway. I wanted to check how you felt about the end of the decommision discussion. Iv seen you with alot of edits but have never hadthe chance to tlk to you so thought whilst i had the id do now, neway see ya round Seddon69 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion thats exactly what i was hoping to be done. Im sure there will still be a few things to iron out and there maybe instances where decommsioned could be used but we just need to deal with each case individually. It would be nice for a MoS to be done for highways, but i think its gonna be difficult to get USRD, CRWP and UKRD all to agree on some things, starting off with the exit lists. Im pushing to get more UK involvement in HWY since it was my idea to broaden motorways out so i felt i should help push for some sort of cohesion between UK and US. Seddon69 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Might want to watch the quickness of your editing...

Apparently PA 61 isn't a U.S. Route. You tagged some Illinois routes just like that, and also maybe a Wisconsin Highway. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 22:50, 03 December 2007 (GMT)

I see why now, it was part of US 122, but…I dunno. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 22:52, 03 December 2007 (GMT)

Recent Removal of section on NY 22

What was with the removal of "Park Avenue Express Highway" section in NY 22 - its not irrelevant. It was a part of the original NY 22 in Manhattan. Its also not speculation, as Steve Anderson has his sources, and some users agree with me. I'm not gonna revert you, but I really suggest readding it.^Mitch32^contribs 11:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 880 (California)

Why you delete the orange param SR-87 from the exit list?Then why does SR-261 have no access junction mention on the exit list or they need to be fix too? --Freewayguy (Comm 90) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exit lists

I've been finding that many exit lists that you've contributed to, you also removed details from. I can understand removing certain details that might be, yes, "crufty", like what road connects the exit ramp to the main road, but then also removing notable destinations that are clearly marked on the actual physical signs, like: the removal of Oakland International Airport from the I-880 junction in the I-80 in CA article. Or removing "Hiddenbrooke Parkway" from the American Canyon Road interchange. Even removing Arthur Road from the Pacheco Boulevard interchange on I-680.

OAK Airport and others being clearly notable, I'd at the very least move it to the notes column, if it can't be in the destinations column, like say the destination for Los Angeles from the approach to I-580 east from I-80 east. I'd even verify it with the pictures on aaroads/westcoastroads.com, or better yet, taking pictures along the highway by self and posting them on Commons rather than relying strictly on the official Cal-NExUS lists, which do have typos from time to time. --Geopgeop (T) 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also mentioned by name here, but then this being on an auxiliary sign, so again, like I said above: http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images075/i-080_eb_exit_008a_06.jpg . --Geopgeop (T) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I-90 in NY

Sorry for the delayed response. I looked at the four articles you listed. The first three do not specifically mention I-90 but are related to the Interstate System in New York in general. The fourth is about a controversy regarding the specific alignment of the free I-90 portion. Here's a rough summary of the four articles (in the order listed on my Talk page):

• Final state legislative approval of 7 interstate highway routes and 10 interstate route connections. These routes are officially established as part of state highway system; Has description of rough alignment of some routes: I-87, I-95; No route numbers mentioned
• Map of approved Interstate routes in NYC metro area; emphasized that route designations were suggested by the states and that locations were not meant to be precise; final alignment up to the states; some discussion about federal highway funding in general
• NY governor Harriman wants provisions for inclusion of toll roads in Interstate System in revised Federal Highway Bill
• NY Automobile Association called on NY governor Rockefeller to veto bill that would establish a new Interstate route between Albany and the Berkshire Thruway; Association says this is a "classic toll trap" forcing drivers onto Thruway in order to connect to TSP. Association wants direct connection to TSP. Bill was already approved by NY legislature and a supported by US Bureau of Public Roads. Also mentions that the road will not begin construction until about 1969.

--Polaron | Talk 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the contents of the two articles that are relevant to I-90:

• Work Is Started On Upstate Bridge

Article has a list of bridges crossing the Hudson between NYC and Albany. The northernmost bridge is listed as the I-90 bridge and the text says it carries the Berkshire spur of the Thruway. This means that in 1972, I-90 was not yet designated on the current free portion.

• 85% of Interstate Roads...

Relevant paragraphs:

"For example, last week the state dropped plans to construct Interstate 687, a 4.6-mile road that would have connected Interstate 90 and the Northway (Interstate 87), bypassing the congested interchange of I-90, the New York State Thruway and the Northway."

Later in the article is a list of Interstate segments still under construction, including:

"Interstate 90 in Rensselaer County, about 10 miles under construction from the Berkshire spur of the New York State Thruway to a completed section of I-90 farther north."

This shows I-90 is on the free portion in the Albany area in Sept. 1973.

--Polaron | Talk 02:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 86 (east)

Hi NE2, I noticed this edit, and thought I'd let you know that your edit broke the table's formatting in a number of places, as well as made broken image links. You might want to revert it, until you can figure out what happened. I didn't take a close look to see what went wrong, but I'd guess it has to do with the attempt to add an additional column? You might want to use the preview button when doing tables, I always find that is really helpful, as it is easy to miss things that might break formatting. That table is pretty complicated, so I'm not sure I'd be able to help you, but I'd suggest reverting your edit for now, because the current revision is quite hard to read. Sorry, I know how hard you worked on it :( Ariel♥Gold 23:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, the table seems quite different to me. For instance, the previous version had sections for each state, that provided navigation via the TOC, For example, it had section that explained the road was in PA, then in NY, and gave the counties. Your edit removed all of those. If this was your intention, and I admit my unfamiliarity with the exist lists guideline, then I apologize. I just found the old version a lot easier to understand, lol. Maybe this is because I don't know those states and don't know the highway; if I were to wish to use Wikipedia as a reference for driving directions, the previous version would be more helpful to me, as it gives identification as to what state and county the road is passing through. Would it be possible to add back in what state the road is in, at the least? (And P.S. the image "Image:Chemung County Route 63 NY.svg CR 63" is still a broken link, though) ;) My apologies if I don't understand the complicated tables that roads are put into, but I did notice this change, as I actually had used that page before when thinking about a trip. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 23:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really odd, I can preview no matter what I'm editing, I just tried it on that page, and it previews okay for me, (sorry! lol). Oh well! I guess I can just save that other version for my own use, lol. Thanks NE2! Ariel♥Gold 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Postmile confusion

Postmile equations are fine, but why are you making the fonts small for the postmiles in freeways in California? AL2TB Gab or Tab 07:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Las Cruces, California

The article was deleted under WP:CSD#G7: it was a blanked article that had only a single contributor. You're more than welcome to write the article again. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Content of two edits prior to the blanking and subsequent tagging:

Las Cruces is a unincorporated town in Santa Barbara County on the 101 that is about 35 miles west of Santa Barbara ,5 miles north of Gaviota and 10 miles south of Buellton . Approximately 15 people live in and near Las Cruces.

--MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. It's a halfway reasonable start, but not really worth restoring. --NE2 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway map

Hey NE2, I have a giganto favor to ask. People at WP:NYCPT are revamping the Staten Island Railway page, and noticing that you have created subway service maps, I'm wondering if you can create a route map for the Staten Island Railway. This would be most appreciated. Thanks, —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about the best way to do it. Please get back to me in a couple days if I have not said anything. --NE2 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

CA SR 120

Hey NE2, were you done with SR 120? I noticed that the "in prog" banner was bot-removed recently, and I know you had been working on it... Edit Centric (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi NE2,

I guess I unintentionally deleted the auxillary route chart on the I-75 page, sorry for the mistake; won't let it happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.36.248 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, not a problem. --NE2 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

CA maps

Thanks for your creation of them... could you fix the tags on the talk page? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma

Hey, I see you have List of Oklahoma numbered highways on your to-do list. Want to try to bring it to Featured list status? I just moved the former highways to their own list (List of former Oklahoma numbered highways) because the main list is pretty huge (and probably going to get bigger), the former routes generally have nothing to do with their present-day counterparts (other than number), and there's probably no point in sorting by them on the main table. Also, having their own list lets us be more expressive about what happened to them afterward (which I know that you're interested in ;) ).

I took a look around your userspace and saw User:NE2/OK. What source did you find those on, ODOT control section maps? I'm particularly interested in SH-000 and SH-0B; may have to make a trip to the Duncan Bypass to see what's going on down there. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe those were from the maps, and are pretty obviously errors. I'm sick right now, so get back to me in a few days. --NE2 11:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17

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) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

re PROD's and stuff

I should point out that you are required to note that you are removing a PROD notice in your edit summary. Other than that every other action seems fine. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured the automatic "redirected to" would be enough, but whatever. --NE2 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SIR map

Any progress on the map, NE2? —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 14:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good map. The southern end goes into the water a little, so I would get rid of that but, but otherwise, the map is great.

I do, have one suggestion: even though your maps for the subway lines don't show stations, it may be necessary to include stations for the SIR line, as well as the closed branches and stations. I will put up a thread at WT:NYCPT so you can get feedback from the others instead of me alone. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for some assistance in adding/ correcting Exits on US 101 at Eureka, California.

Hello. I was attempting to correct some minor issues with the exits in and around Eureka, Ca. For example there is an exit for Jacobs Avenue (north bound on and off only) on the north side before Indianola that is not accounted for. Also, The Indianola exit as well as the Jacobs Avenue exit are within the City limits of Eureka, which also requires an adjustment to formatting as they are not attributed to being within the City. I was thinking that the Herrick avenue exit was within the City Limits, but in reality it may be that the city limits southern boundary occurs scant feet north of the exit. Can you please look at the entry I was working on and had to undo and get back to me. Much appreciated. And thanks for all your work slogging through so much tedious and extensive article updating and development. Norcalal 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix on the Eureka, Ca section of US 101 in Northern California. I will put forth to you that the Jacobs Avenue exit and onramp is a vital exit in the expressway section of the highway to the north of Eureka. And as a result of a closure it is now the only access to the public small craft airport local to (and in) the City. So I would say, please add Jacobs Avenue. Regards Norcalal 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:California State Route 29.svg

Good job with the maps; however, in Image:California State Route 29.svg (and related) I think Clear Lake should be on the map. As one of the largest lakes in California, it seems kinda off that it's not on this map. (Looking more...) Oh yeah, same with Lake Tahoe. With those two lakes not on the maps, it's almost the same as omitting the bays from the Bay Area. --Geopgeop (T) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, you can go ahead. Oh, and one more lake, involving SR 128: Lake Berryessa. The two lakes I mentioned earlier are a must, but Lake Berryessa, I'll let you decide. (probably the Salton Sea down in Southern California as well...) --Geopgeop (T) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of numbered highways in Tennessee

I overhauled the page since you had added a cleanup tag, and I was wondering if you might take a look again to see if I am on the right track or if I need to go in a different direction with the article. I would greatly appreciate it! Taliesin duomo (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 710

Why you delete Rte 1, 91, and 60 from infobox on majour juntions? In this case I thought we can list up to 7 to 10. 1 and 405 is in Long Beach and 91 is in North Long Beach. So what's wrong with them?Ive been at Long Beach aquarium where is locate almost of Queen Mary is about 6 years ago. It is at the south end of the 710 is about at Queen Mary. --LAFreeways (Conf) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I-174

The way you eliminate I-174 what you mean by fail law? Or is just city speculation?--LAFreeways (Conf) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG

I noticed that you added SVG maps to highways in California. They're pretty impressive. Just wondering, how do you create SVG images? AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

US Route 30 dropped from WPOR

I noticed on this edit you dropped WikiProject Oregon from Talk:U.S. Route 30. Is this intentional? The edit summary (Tagged) certainly doesn't suggest such intent. By removing the WikiProject tag from the talk page, it falls off our WikiProject's recent changes list, and pretty much loses our visibility as a result. FWIW. —EncMstr 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I had the same confusion with U.S. Route 97. A better explanation in the edit summary would have been helpful, as I reverted your removal of the WP:ORE tag twice... Katr67 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article California State Route 275, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 08:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma

The Oklahoma WikiProject does not cover road transport. It covers state highways only. See WP:OKSH#Articles. Auto trails are outside of the scope of the project, do not readd them unless you can provide a source that they were maintained by the Oklahoma state government. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The categories were named to parallel that of the U.S. road project. In any case, we're debating setting up a Auto Trails task force on WT:USRD/SUB because it seems that a lot of the other states have the same problem with this as OK does. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Highway in Omaha

The Lincoln Highway (Omaha) is and has been since its inception been paved with cobblestone, and is always referred to in literature as a highway or road - never as a "trail". According to Wiktionary, a highway is a "main, direct public road, especially a multi-lane, high speed thoroughfare connecting major population centers."[2] A road is a "narrow strip of land made suitable for travel between places. Modern roads are usually paved to accommodate wheeled vehicles."[3] A trail, in this case, is "A route for travel over land, especially a narrow, unpaved route for use by hikers, horse riders, etc."[4] T By playing the revert game you are not fostering the spirit of collaboration that WP is all about - please give that a try, and work with me here to come to a consensus. • Freechild'sup? 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I appreciate that amount of work you do on highway-related articles, and if you can show me the WikiProject U.S. Roads guideline here I will surely backdown. • Freechild'sup? 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not nearly a policy; rather, it is an uncited article. Instead of beefing with you here though, I will take it up on that page, which maybe no more than WP:OR. I believe you are acting in good faith. • Freechild'sup? 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Request

Hello. I saw a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal that has you listed as a party, and would like to mediate the case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads. I hope that you will allow me to mediate your dispute peacefully, and that the problem can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Best regards, Keilana_(recall) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be part of the problem, please feel free to post comments on the case page. Please try to stay civil during the process, no one involved (including me) wants this to escalate. Keilana_(recall) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really up to them, but I'll post a reminder on the page. Keilana_(recall) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fully protecting the page until a consensus is reached. Would that be satisfactory enough for you to enter mediation? Keilana_(recall) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you assume good faith so we can attempt to solve the problem? Keilana_(recall) 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will look at things. I think that your conduct is part of the issue, and I'm afraid that if you don't solve the problem at lower channels, it'll end up in ArbCom with a whole bunch of unnecessary drama. And no one needs that. I do think that the larger issue should be discussed, but since your conduct is a major issue within that, it needs to be discussed. Keilana_(recall) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, would you consider participating in mediation to air your grievances (civilly) and defend yourself? If you want to take this to ArbCom or MedCom, fine, but I personally think that that will just introduce unnecessary bureaucracy and drama. Keilana_(recall) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that in the meantime, you should air your concerns on the page. Keilana_(recall) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, does this mean you're participating in the mediation then? Keilana_(recall) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't do that; the mediation was opened to discuss your conduct. However, if you would like to ask the other participants about expanding the scope to the issue that sparked the dispute, you may. Keilana_(recall) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I expect that this will be taken to higher levels of resolution, though I am not a part of those channels. Good luck in your future endeavors. I will explain to participants. Regards, Keilana_(recall) 01:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration that you are a party to has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#NE2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions

Frankly I don't care about or understand the exact details of the dispute. Even if Rschen7754's edit prior to placing protection improved the page, it was still inappropriate. And it was still inappropriate for him to protect it as an involved admin. And so on. I'm not taking your side because I don't know much about the dispute. I'm simply lodging a complaint about an inappropriate admin action. If the fellow had simply said "that was a mistake which I'll fix" then that would have ended it. Insisting that it's OK to break the rules for no particular reason is what gives admins a bad name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

California State Route 160

Fine, I understand about the wikilink thing, but I'm very familiar with this route. I should know. I drove it thousands of times. I know about the Del Paso Boulevard left exit northbound. I know about the Tribute Road onramp primarily being used as a eastbound onramp to Bus. 80 from Exposition Boulevard. Undoing virtually every edit I do is really you insulting my intelligence. You should stop thinking about yourself and think about others. PhATxPnOY916 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Permite me to jump in, if that's okay. It it's a left exit for Del Paso Boulevard on SR 160, then it should be noted. And for NE2, not all of the exit lists have to be your way. You can revert revisions, but that doesn't always mean it's perfectly okay to get rid of all our changes just because you deem "unneccesary". I know I may not be the perfect editor here, but you and I do know that you should not just revert edits once every 30 seconds and have things your way; rather we should integrate your changes with everyone else's and improve the articles in WP:CASH and WP:USRD. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

dyk

On 30 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article State Route 160 (California), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect edit war

Why on Earth are you edit-warring over fixing piped links to not redirect to articles? This makes absolutely no sense at all whatsoever. The purpose of a piped link is to avoid redirects entirely, taking readers straight to the artlcle in question. The articles in question are not and never will be located at a postal code abbreviation, therefore there's absolutely no reason to send readers there instead of pipe-linking them straight to the article. Can you offer any sort of reason as to why we should send people through a redirect? FCYTravis (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the purpose of a piped link? The whole point of pipe-linking is to avoid redirects entirely, enabling us to display one thing and link to another. The articles in question will *never* be located at "City, CA", therefore there is absolutely no reason to redirect there. Unless we're going to display-name the cities as "City, CA" there's no good reason to use the redirect rather than taking advantage of the pipe-link and putting readers straight in the article. If we showed the cities in-text as "City, CA" then yes, using the redirect would be sensible. But because they're not, why on Earth would we use the pipelink to send readers anywhere but directly to the article? You're making absolutely no sense. FCYTravis (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, mate, you're being an insensate policy wonk instead of focusing on our readers. I will ask again - why on Earth are you opposed to me wikignoming the links straight to where they should go? What about is wrong? How does it help readers to send them through redirects and not straight to the article in question? FCYTravis (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not unnecessary, it eliminates a needless redirect step (what happens if the redirect gets broken?) and it makes the page longer by all of a few bytes.

Yes, it says "don't pipe to avoid redirects." So, don't pipe TO a redirect. If you're going to use pipelinks, put the pipe to the correct place. Otherwise, don't bother piping the links at all. FCYTravis (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm being an insensate policy wonk in response to your insensate policy-wonking. There is absolutely no good reason to link to a redirect when the pipe is in place and I cannot understand why on Earth you would be opposed to helping our readers by bypassing needless, useless redirects. FCYTravis (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They're bounced through the redirect title system unnecessarily, when the pipelink allows us to send readers through without redirecting. If you're going to pipe the link, pipe it to the right place. Otherwise, the pipe is pointless. I don't get your single-minded insistence on going through needless redirects when the pipelink system allows us not to have to go through them. The redirect doesn't need to be there. The extra five or 10 bytes per "California" are of no consequence. FCYTravis (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NE2, you should not remove legal definitions of some route. They were on every single article pertaining to all the highways in California, whether it be Interstates, U.S. Routes, or State Routes.

Also, may I ask why is it actually beneficial to put a piped link to, for example, "[[SR 4 (CA)|SR 4]]", when you know that SR 4 (CA) will at the very least likely to become anything other than a pure redirect? And bypassing redirects is actually not "detrimental" if such redirect will never be used.

In addition, unless I see that you remove all the county abbreviations for all articles related to highways in California, I will simply restore back the abbreviations, or add them if it hasn't been already. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see you remove all the county abbreviations for ALL of the highways in California if that should be the case. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And how long do you think it would take you to do so? AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is naturally inconsistent, but we sure don't want readers in our article reading the same table in the exit lists with different formats on it. That might just confuse the reader. And in an unlikely event that you are in the middle of the task of removing all the county abbreviations and such, then you want to or have to leave Wikipedia for a specified amount of time, it will never be complete because you are the only one to be removing all the county abbreviations and you wouldn't be here to complete your task. Yes, that was a total run-on sentence, but hope you can understand all that. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew that last comment was confusing to understand. Just disregard that one. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for intervening, but I understand the problem that the FCYTravis and AL2TB are having with "NE2'S Manual of Style"; I should know, I have had the same issue for months. I never understand why NE2 chooses to edit like this, and I guess I or any of us never will, but I have to believe that that is his own choice of editing, and if that's the way he wants to edit, then we have no right to tell him how to edit. He has his own specific writing style. Yes, I do believe the over usage of redirects is tedious and unnecessary, but that's my opinion. I think that this issue should be taken to a much broader audience because many more have problems than just us three. The way NE2 edits may be strange but we all have different habits that may be normal to us but weird to others, and I have come to accept NE2's editing style, despite how strange it may seem to me. I don't think that changing his edits may be all that necessary, but notice a disclaimer at the bottom of the page every time someone edits: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. This applies to all our edits and NE2's edits as well, but I don't think he should get mad because others are editing his edits, whether by good-faith or without mercy. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war with my cousin

I realize my cousin, Artisol2345 (who left Wikipedia in November), also had edit wars with you. I noticed from the Interstate 15 in Arizona article, you were both fighting over whether there should've been a "Mohave County" column, or "Anne Arundel County" column in Interstate 97. May I ask why you gave up edit warring on those articles, yet you do not give up edit warring for California State Route 160? AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agh, how did that get back in? WP:ELG states that it shouldn't be there. --NE2 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bleh... why did I even say so? Never mind. Anyways, WP:ELG said that it was optional, meaning you could leave it out, or put it back in. How did you not notice those when you had those articles on your watchlist this whole time since August 2007? AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say cousin, do you mean yourself? :) --NE2 22:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, no, silly! :D He was from San Diego. He spent the whole summer at my house, and told me all about Wikipedia. We were both interested in roads. Besides, he's like, 12 1/2 years old; I'm 15 1/2. You can talk to User:PrestonH about it. He's my friend from math class in real life, and he also had a talk with him before he left. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you were wondering why Artisol2345 left Wikipedia, it's because for personal reasons, he just can't visit Wikipedia anymore. Then I came in since he told me how there is a perfect community if I were to learn more about roads. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What state do you live in?

Just wondering, what state do you live in? If you live in California, chances are I think you know a lot about California freeways. If you live in New England (well, that's what you specified in your username), then I wonder how you knew a lot of information about California in the first place. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to study California's highways after being sort of forced into it to keep Central Freeway from being merged. --NE2 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anacostia Metro Station

I have a question about ambiguous wording from an edit you made back in May. Please check the following talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anacostia_%28Washington_Metro%29 Thanks. StaticElectric (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK: U.S. Route 199

On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Route 199, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

California State Route 70

Congrats and thanks for your work on California State Route 70. This became one of my favorite drives since I stumbled onto it quite by accident on a boring sunday afternoon just after moving to the Reno, Nevada area. It finally has a worthy wikipedia article thanks to you. I have many pictures of this highway, I uploaded the current one after realizing nobody else had put a picture up. I just did a quick scan of my pictures and uploaded what I thought was the best. If you feel this article deserves more pictures, let me know, I'd be more than happy to volunteer more. Davemeistermoab (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded about 5 more pics. I'll let you pick and choose which if any should go on the article. All are tagged Category:California State Route 70 on commons

Actually I feel kinda bad. Most of the pictures of the bridges and tunnels were taking while the car was moving (as seen by the blur). I took several with the car stopped, but they have me or my wife in them and I couldn't crop us out without taking out the item of interest. All of the pictures I have of the central valley end of the highway are at sunset and as such there is glare and color problems with them. Yeah, I can probably figure out from the sequence of the photos, which bridge and tunnel that is. However right now I have to get ready for a New Years Eve party. I'll do that later. Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Real quick, i believe this is the tunnel:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Portola,+California&ie=UTF8&ll=39.852426,-121.391802&spn=0.006334,0.007929&t=h&z=17&iwloc=addr&om=1 Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)